Sitting of 18 May 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with)—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely: —
East Kent Electric Power [Lords].
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Gloucester Corporation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
University of Wales (No. 2) Bill,
Second Reading deferred from To-morrow until Friday, 26th May.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to be upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Charles Shiel's Charity Bill [Lords],
Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Metropolitan Railway Bill,
Enfield Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to: —
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13) Bill, with Amendments,
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to: —
Luton Water Bill,
London Cemetery Company Bill,
Swinton Urban District Council Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the regulation of moveable dwellings."—[Moveable Dwellings Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to. incorporate the Star Life Assurance Society under the name of 'The Star Assurance Society'; to provide for the management of its affairs and to confer further powers on the society; and for other purposes."—[Star Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords].
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Star Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

INSURANCE LEGISLATION IN GERMANY.
Copy presented of Memorandum containing the opinion of various authorities in Germany [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th April; Mr. Hobhouse]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
Copy presented of Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Metropolitan Water Board and abstract of their Accounts for the yeas ended 31st March, 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADDRESSES).
Address for Return ordered, "giving the names and addresses of all justices of the peace for the counties of England and Wales, on the 1st day of May, 1911, with the dates of their appointment, arranged under Petty Sessional Divisions; and of the names and addresses of all justices of the peace for the cities and boroughs of England and Wales on the 1st day of May, 1911, with the dates of their appointment."—[Mr. Radall.]
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SCHEMES FOR THE REGULATION OF HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT IN CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS).
Copies presented of Schemes for the Regulation of Hours of Employment of persons who light the laundry fires in respect of certain Salvation Army Institutions, approved by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by Section 5 (2) (a) of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire constituting certain Polling Districts in the Pudsey, Barnsley, and Hallamshire Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie -upon the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS (COURT OF CHANCERY).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: —Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of classes of Documents which were formerly in the custody of the Masters in Ordinary of the High Court of Chancery, and which are now in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Trial of Farid Bey.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received the particulars about the trial of Farid Bey which he undertook to procure from Egypt; and, if so, whether he would communicate them to the House?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Farid Bey was tried on 23rd January last by the Cairo Court of Assize, composed of three Judges of the Court of Appeal, who sit without a jury. These Assize Courts were instituted in Egypt by a law dated 12th January, 1905. Farid Bey was condemned to six months' imprisonment without labour. The offence for which he was tried and condemned was the writing of a preface in justification of a volume which contained a collection of poems, some of which constituted offences against the criminal law. Farid Bey appealed to the Court of Cassation on points of law. The case was heard on 4th March, and the appeal was rejected on 11th March.

  Suez Cana Scheme.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the statement contained in the Report of the Consul-General for Egypt that the Egyptian National Assembly displayed an unreasonable hostility to the Suez Canal scheme, he would now lay upon the Table a translation of the Report of the Committee of the General Assembly in which the reasons for rejecting the proposed convention was set forth?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not consider that there is sufficient reason to justify the expense and labour of translating into English and laying the report as a Parliamentary Paper; but I will obtain copies of the French version of the report and of the Egyptian Government's observations upon it, and send them to the library of the House.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—seeing that the report of the Consul-General contained the statement that the Egyptian National Assembly showed an unreasonable hostility—whether it would not be fair to give the same publicity to the report of the Assembly, in order to give this House an opportunity of judging of the facts?
  Sir E. GREY: I will put copies of the original version of the report in the library. There would be considerable labour and expense involved in the translation of the report. If this proposed convention were to be revived, I think there might be a case for publishing a translation of the report and laying it before the House, but as it is not being revived we are hardly justified in undertaking the labour and expense of translating it.

  Baptist Mission Stations (Congo).
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Baptist Missionary Society in the Congo have for a long time been denied their rights under the Berlin Act to obtain sites for mission stations, whilst Roman Catholic missions are freely granted whatever land they may require; and whether, as the Act referred to guarantees the right to erect buildings and organise missions belonging to any creed, free of any restriction or impediment whatsoever, he will call the attention of the Belgian Government to this violation of our treaty rights?
  Sir E. GREY: I have recently received a letter from the Baptist Missionary Society on the subject of the difficulties the society is experiencing in obtaining sites for missions in the Congo. Of course, no improper difficulties should be placed in the way of the society, and it should receive as favourable treatment as any other religious mission. I propose to instruct His Majesty's Minister in Brussels to make representations on the society's behalf.

  Emigration from Ireland.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if there has been a marked increase in the emigration from Ireland in the first four months of this year compared with the corresponding period in the preceding three years; and, if so, can he state if such increase is chiefly to the United States, or to Canada, or where?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The number of persons who emigrated from Ireland during the first four months of 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911 were respectively, 7,619, 10,114, 10,757, and 11,455. The increase is almost entirely due to increased emigration to Canada and the United States, but while the number of emigrants to the United States has increased from 5,435 during the
  2118
  first four months of 1908 to 8,595 in the corresponding period of this year, or 58 per cent., the emigration to Canada has increased in the same period from 866 to 1,921, or 122 per cent.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether there is a monthly return of these figures issued in Ireland by the Registrar-General, and, if so, whether it would be possible to make that return available generally for Members of the House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, if there is any demand for it, I will see what can be done.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the causes of emigration is the want of land for landless people, and will he endeavour to make the distribution of land what it ought to be in accordance with the intention of Parliament?
  Captain CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman ascribe the emigration to the grave fears of the people in regard to Home Rule?
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether it is not; the fact that this emigration is caused by the desire of the people to go to countries where there is Home Rule?
  Mr. FELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received any reports from Ireland that the emigrants leaving that country at the present time are of a more prosperous class than in former years, and are taking with them larger sums of money; and if he can give any reason or explanation of this or any particulars on the subject?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The official information available with regard to emigration from Ireland does not enable me to answer this question.
  Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the emigrants are of a more prosperous class than in former years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I really do not know that there is a class distinction between emigrants. That is a matter which would require careful investigation. At present I have not got the information.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. HAYDENasked whether the estate of the representatives of H. B. Brabazon, situated in the parish of Ballinlough;

  2119
  county Roscommon, has been offered to the Congested Districts Board; and whether, in view of the fact that the holdings upon this estate have been injured by the drainage works carried out on the Dillon Estate by the Congested Districts Board and not continued through the Brabazon Estate, the Board will take immediate action for its purchase and improvement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate has been offered to the Congested Districts Board and will be inspected as soon as practicable. The hon. Member is, in the opinion of the Board, under a misapprehension in thinking that the drainage words carried out on the Dillon Estate have caused injury to the holdings on the Brabazon Estate.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that, according to certificates received from the County Council Office, Galway, the amount of land formerly held by the Messrs. Payne on the Pollock Estate, in the county Galway, and now taken over by the Estates Commnssioners, is 409 acres 3 roods 29 poles, and that the valuation of the same is £228; that, according to these certificates the land held by the firm in the townland of Glinsk is 74 acres 1 rood 34 poles, Ardagh 277 acres 3 roods 12 poles, and Ardagh 57 acres 2 roods 23 poles; whether land in any other places besides these formerly held by Messrs. Payne has been surrendered by them to the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, whether he would explain the figures given by the Estates Commissioners that the area of the land acquired by them in exchange for land on the Crofton estate in the county Roscommon is 523 acres and the valuation £326 10s.?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member has kindly furnished me with certificates showing that the area and valuation of the lands mentioned in the question are as stated therein, but the Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands surrendered by the Messrs. Payne on the Pollock Estate included the lands of Ballincurry in addition to those mentioned by the hon. Member.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the area of distribution and the valuation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not the valuation, but the area is 177 acres 2 roods 20 perches.
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Chief-Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have sent an inspector to inquire and report on the condition of the tenants on the estate of Captain Murphy, at Lullymore, Rathangan, county Kildare; if he can state how many tenants on this property occupy uneconomic holdings; how much grass land Captain Murphy has on his own hands; how much grass land on his property Captain Murphy has let on the eleven months' system; will he explain why the inspector did not visit these lands; can he say whether the tenants will be apprised of his coming in order that they may be able to point out the existing conditions, or their solicitor, who has sent a memorial to the Estates Commissioners on their behalf, will be informed of the date of visit; and what steps the Estates Commissioners are prepared to take to relieve the congestion on this estate and give the occupiers the benefit of the provisions of the Land Act of 1903?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have referred the Papers in this case to an inspector, who will visit the property and make inquiries, pending which the Commissioners are not in a position to answer the points raised in the question. The tenants and their solicitors will be duly advised of the date of the inspector's visit.
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could say on what date the sale of the Latouche estate, in South Kildare, was sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners; whether the schedule of tenants in occupation, with area of farms and amount of purchase money agreed upon, has been carefully examined; has this schedule been supplied by the landlord, his land agent, or solicitor acting on his behalf; did it include all the tenants, large and small, in occupation of holdings on the estate; if not, why were any excluded; can he state the amount of advance sanctioned for purchase on this estate to any one family consisting of father and son; whether the Commissioners have satisfied themselves that both were genuine tenants and entitled to such advance; and whether care has been taken that the limit allowed by the Act of 1903 has not been exceeded, and that no collusion has taken place between any of the parties concerned with the object of obtaining an advance for purchase in excess of the amount sanctioned by law,

  2121
  thereby defeating the provision of the Act of 1903 limiting the amount of State aid for purchase?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The advances in respect of the greater part of this estate were sanctioned by the Estate Commissioners in March last. The vendor lodged a Schedule of Tenancies in the prescribed form which included particulars of all tenancies proposed to be sold. The case of advances to father and son referred to is probably that of William Ashe and William W. A she, who obtained advances of £4,687 and £7,000 respectively. The Commissioners satisfied themselves by inquiry that both the Ashes were bonâ fide tenants, and that the circumstances of each case were such that the advances applied for should be sanctioned.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Am I to understand that the schedule furnished to the Estates Commissioners of tenancies on this estate contained the names of all the tenancies?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, the names of all the tenancies which were proposed to be sold.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: There were some not included in the schedule. Why were they left out?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether that was so or not. If any of the tenancies were left out, it would be because the Estates Commissioners thought they could not be treated properly under the Act.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the land agents in supplying the Commissioners did not leave out purposely the names of about ten small tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no knowledge whatever of the circumstances of the case. All I know is that the schedule contained all the tenancies proposed to be sold. Whether some small tenancies were omitted I do not know.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: On what principle did they sanction the sale of a portion of the property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is within the discretion of the Estates Commissioners to decide in regard to a particular holding whether it could be properly treated under the Act.

  Workmen's Houses, Ennis (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say when the loan sanctioned by the Local Government Board will be made to the Ennis Urban Council for the purpose of erecting houses for the working men of Ennis under the Housing of the Working Classes Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Treasury authorised on the 17th instant the issue of a loan of 13,760 to the Ennis Urban District Council under the Housing of the Working Classes Act.

  Census (Ireland.).
  Mr. MOOREasked how it has been possible for the British Census authorities to give approximate returns of the last Census for cities like Glasgow and other places, while the Irish Registrar General is unable to give returns for Portadown, with about 12,000 inhabitants; and what experience, if any, of Census work this official has ever had, and on what qualification was he appointed by the Government to his present position?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners appointed under the Irish Census Act consider that they are not authorised to give any information in connection with the Census prior to the presentation to Parliament of the abstract referred to in Section (6) of the Act. Their preliminary report is completed, and will be in the hands of the Irish Government to-day, which is two days earlier than on the occasion of the last Census. The Registrar-General possessed the medical qualifications which have usually been considered necessary in the ease of those holding that office, and has, since his appointment, discharged all his duties with the most marked efficiency. Like most of his predecessors he has had to acquire his experience of Census work after appointment.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, this official will devote himself to his work instead of going about the country making speeches for the Lord-Lieutenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is a pity that the hon. Member should put to me a question of that sort reflecting on the character of a most efficient public servant who is not here to defend himself. I understand that he discharges all his duties with the most marked efficiency, and I hear from the

  2123
  staff that they are very glad to be under the control of so eminent and energetic a gentleman.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how often this gentleman has been absent from his duties in the course of the last year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will do nothing of the kind.
  Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he went to France with the Lord-Lieutenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. MOORE: Is he aware that he makes speeches once a month for the Lord-Lieutenant through the country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must protest against these imputations against an efficient public servant.

  Westmeath County Council Election (Finea Division).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Local Government Board for Ireland will immediately arrange for a fresh county council election in the Finea division of Westmeath, in the room of the member recently elected and since deceased, in order to have the vacancy filled by the electors instead of by the new council?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are in correspondence with the County Council on the subject.

  Local Government Elections (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked, having regard to complaints relating to former local government elections, whether the Local Government Board for Ireland will on the present occasion issue positive instructions to presiding and returning officers to allow every candidate so desiring to seal with his private seal the ballot-boxes and the rooms in which they are kept pending count?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No complaints have been been received by the Local Government Board. There is no necessity for issuing any special instructions on the subject as the provisions of the Ballot Act, which are applied to Local Government Elections in Ireland, require the returning officers to open the sealed ballot-boxes only in the presence of the agents of the candidates.
  2124
  An election officer who commits any breach of the above provisions is liable to severe penalties under Section (3) of the Act.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Leave of Absence).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware that sergeants in charge of stations in the Royal Irish Constabulary are permitted to grant leave to men not required for duty for a period not exceeding eight hours per month; and whether he will advise the authorities to extend the privilege to eight hours per week?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware of the regulation referred to in the first part of the question. I understand that the Royal Irish Constabulary are more favourably treated with respect to leave of absence than most police forces, and I see no proper grounds for extending the privilege as suggested.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sergeants in charge in the larger towns have now the privilege indicated in the latter portion of the question, and when the constables are not required in country districts would it be possible to extend to them at least some of the privileges which they are allowed in the larger towns?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have had before me quite lately the privileges with regard to outdoor hours which the Constabulary enjoy and I do not think that there is any occasion for a relaxation of the rules.
  Mr. MOORE: Would the right hon. Gentleman give this deserving class even one-sixteenth of the leave of absence which is taken by the Irish Registrar-General?

  Coronation (National Schools, Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will make an effort to arrange with the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to permit those National school teachers, who so desire, to have a full week's holiday at Coronation time in order to visit London and view the procession, and otherwise take part in the National rejoicings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on 6th April, the Commissioners of National Education have decided to allow managers to close their schools on 22nd and 23rd June, and on 10th and 11th July. The

  2125
  Commissioners no doubt considered that this would be a more convenient arrangement in Ireland than to give a full week's holiday at the time of the Coronation. National teachers who wish to visit London to view the Coronation procession will have an opportunity of doing so.
  Captain CRAIG: Does that mean that all teachers who desire to do so will get leave from the Commissioners if they make application in time?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether, where the managers of National schools in Ireland are so disposed, they will be permitted to fly the Union Jack on the school buildings for the day of the King's Coronation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they adhere to the decision which they arrived at some years ago that they cannot sanction flags of any description in or on National schools.
  Captain CRAIG: On this special occasion will the right hon. Gentleman not issue instructions that where the managers and teachers and the majority of the parents of the children attending the schools desire it they may fly the National flag outside the schools?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think it would be very undesirable to have on the National schools any particular flag.
  Mr. MOORE: Did the Commissioners arrive at that decision before or after they allowed certain Roman Catholic schools to have religious emblems in their schools?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think that the date when they arrived at their decision was some time in 1888.

  Poppy Growing (Szchuan, China).
  Mr. THEODORE C. TAYLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Sir Alexander Hosie's Report as to poppy growing in the Chinese province of Szchuan has now been received; and whether he will communicate its contents to the House?
  Sir E. GREY: The Report in question has been received, and will shortly be laid before Parliament, together with Sir Alexander Hosie's Reports on opium production in the provinces of Shensi, Shansi, Kansu, and Yunnan.

  Gold Law (Transvaal).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has any information as to the Gold Law, 1908, and Townships Amendment Acts of the Transvaal, 1908; and whether British-Indian merchants, and others, will in the future find it impossible to reside or trade in proclaimed gold-bearing areas, Johannesburg, Klerksdorp, etc., by reason of these laws?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am aware of the legislation referred to. It is provided under the Gold Law, 1908, that no right may be acquired by a coloured person, and that no such person may reside on land proclaimed for mining in certain mining districts, except in bazaars, locations, and such other places as a mining commissioner may permit. In the view of the late Transvaal Government, these provisions simply continued the existing state of affairs, but they nevertheless decided to provide for possible cases of hardship by safeguarding existing rights. In these circumstances my predecessor decided that His Majesty should not be advised to disallow the legislation.

  Imperial Conference.
  Mr. HARCOURT: May I take this opportunity of appealing to the House that during the sittings of the Imperial Conference, which commences next week, I may be allowed to answer any questions that may be put to me in writing on the Paper?

  Cable Room Employés (Post Office).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Postmaster-General if any action had yet been taken to remove the grievance from which the employés in the Cable Room admittedly suffer in connection with special allowances to which they are entitled?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I am still in communication with the Treasury on this subject.

  Letters from Egypt (Delay in Transmission).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a letter from Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, dated 20th April, formally complaining of his correspondence with native Egyptians at Cairo having been subjected to inquisitorial

  2127
  action, delay, and sequestration during the months of March and April; whether there is any regulation with regard to Egyptian correspondence, recognised by the British Government or the British postal department, which authorises delay in the transmission, the opening, and the non-delivery of letters either at Cairo or in London or on the way between those two places; and whether registered letters between England and Egypt enjoy the same special security against miscarriage guaranteed to those in transmission elsewhere?
  Captain NORTON: Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's letter of 20th April was duly received. He was informed in reply that there was no reason to think that his correspondence was being irregularly treated in this country, and that inquiry was being made of the Egyptian Post Office on the subject. There has been no time for a reply to be received. So far as I am aware, there is no regulation such as that which the hon. Member describes. The Post Office regulations dealing with registered letters sent between England and Egypt are those of the Postal Union Convention, which are the same for all countries adhering to it.
  Mr. DILLON: If any reply is received will the Postmaster-General communicate with me or Mr. Wilfrid Blunt?
  Captain NORTON: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that.

  Letter-Cards and Post-Cards.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will endeavour to obtain for the information of the House, in view of the intention of the Post Office to provide post-cards to the public at face value, the number of post-cards passing through the post offices of France, Germany, and the United States, and, if possible, classified, of private origin, provided by Government, and pictorial postcards for the years from 1890 to 1910?
  Captain NORTON: The answer to the first question is that I do not feel justified in asking the Postal Administrations of France, Germany, and the United States to undertake the task of providing the return for which the lion. Member asks.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether he took any means to consult members of the retail stationery trade regarding the effect of his proposals to supply the public with letter-
  2128
  cards and post-cards at the face value of the stamp upon their trade before declaring his intention?
  Captain NORTON: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General if he is successful in carrying out his proposals to give the public letter-cards and post-cards at the face value of the stamp, whether it is his intention to recommend to the House that the stationer postmasters be compensated for loss of business, as the Treasury did in the case of rural postmen on the introduction of the parcel post?
  Captain NORTON: The answer is in the negative. The compensation given to rural postmen on the introduction of the parcel post cannot be regarded as an analagous case.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General if he will state what increase of staff he considers necessary to cope with the work of storing, checking, and the distributing of the free post-cards and letter-cards in the post offices, and the cost of same?
  Captain NORTON: I do not anticipate that any increase in staff at post offices will be necessary.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I mean in reference to the work of checking and distributing. I do not mean merely in the post offices.
  Captain NORTON: I will ask my right hon. Friend to inquire into that.

  Sorters (Extra Hours).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that of the 15,822 hours extra duty performed by postmen and sorters in the East Central section, General Post Office, for the two weeks ending 8th and 15th April only 3,300 were clue to the additional staff being under training in the school of instruction; if these officers are frequently withdrawn from their tuition on the midday duty to assist in the disposal of correspondence owing to insufficient staff at that time of the day; whether over 13,000 hours overtime had to be incurred for the week ending 6th May through insufficient staff; and, if so, whether, in the circumstances, the additional staff granted by the Treasury in March last is sufficient to meet the requirements of the public service in this section.
  Captain NORTON: It is a fact that of the extra duty performed by sorters and postmen in the Eastern Central Section during the two weeks ended April 15 only about 3,300 hours were due to fresh staff being under tuition, and to this extent my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 3rd instant requires correction. Officers are occasionally withdrawn from the school to perform elementary duties, but this arrangement is part of their training, and conduces to efficiency. During the week ended May 6 there was slightly over 13,000 hours of extra duty performed by all ranks in the Eastern Central Section of the London postal service, but this total includes all Sunday work (about 1,000 hours), which is entirely voluntary, and extra duty of an intermittent nature which cannot be converted into regular force without great waste. The hon. Member may rest assured that if it be found practicable to proceed further in the direction of converting overtime into regular force this will be done. It is in the interest alike of efficiency and economy that such conversions should be made in every case in which it will not involve at any time of the year men being paid for whom there is no work.

  Phthisis (Compulsory Notification).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps, either by administrative order or by the introduction of legislation, to make all cases of phthisis compulsorily notifiable?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): As I explained in the House a short time ago, I have recently extended the range of notification of pulmonary tuberculosis. Before proceeding further in that direction, I propose to await the results of that extension.

  Sewers and Drains.
  Mr. RAFFANasked whether there have been received representations from local authorities as to the unsatisfactory state of the law relative to sewers and drains; and whether the President of the Local Government Board proposes to introduce legislation dealing with the matter during the present Session of Parliament?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received a number of representations of the kind referred to, but I could not promise to introduce legis-
  2130
  lation on the subject this Session. Perhaps, I may say, that the Public Health (Sewers and Drains) Bill, which is now before the House, would, with some Amendment, go a long way, in my opinion, to meet the difficulty caused by the present unsatisfactory state of the law.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Will the Government give support to the Bill?
  Mr. BURNS: If we can see our way to getting through a Bill unopposed, naturally we shall be pleased to do the rest of the business.

  Cardiff Guardians.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked whether the President of the Local Government Board's attention has been called to the action of the Cardiff guardians in handing over a fifteen-year-old girl to a convent institution over which they exercise no control, and where they have no visiting power, and which is not registered for the reception of such children; whether the relatives have been consulted; and will he insist that in such cases the right of entry shall be insisted upon or the children removed to institutions where inspection is allowed?
  Mr. BURNS: I am making inquiries with regard to this case, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

  Compounding for Rates.
  Colonel YATEasked whether, in view of the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1909 in favour of the abolition or reduction to the lowest possible limits of the present practice of compounding for rates, there is any intention on the part of the Government to legislate thereon at an early date?
  Mr. BURNS: I am collecting, through the district auditors information as to the extent of compounding for rates. I cannot at the present time make any statement as to the possibility of legislation on the subject.
  Colonel YATE: Considering that the evidence in favour of the abolition of compounding for rates was very strong and conclusive, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give facilities for the introduction of a Bill by a private Member?
  Mr. BURNS: Looking at the number of Orders on the Paper, I do not think I could hold out that hope.

  Imported Milk.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked in how many cases during the past twelve months have analyses been made of dried milk or milk powder imported into this country; in how many cases has such analysis disclosed the existence of impurity or disease; and whether any and, if so, what steps are taken to ascertain the conditions under which such commodity is manufactured and to what extent, if at all, cow's milk enters into its constitution?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand that during the past twelve months, twenty-three samples of milk powder have been taken at ports by Customs officials and examined at the Government laboratory. In every case the analysis showed that the powder consisted of genuine cow's milk, either whole or machine-skimmed, from which nearly the whole of the water had been removed by evaporation, leaving the milk solids in a practically dry condition. All the samples were examined for preservatives, but none were found. I may add that, with a view to ascertaining the liability or otherwise of dried milk to contain deleterious organisms, investigations are in progress in regard to a process largely employed in the preparation of dried milks of home and foreign origin.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the cream or butter-fat of the milk has been extracted?
  Mr. BURNS: I think the hon. Member must await the result of the examination which is being made. The report on a matter like that would certainly be presented to the House.

  Dock Labourers.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of unskilled labourers employed in loading and unloading vessels in the ports of the United Kingdom, in the docks at Liverpool, and in Manchester and Salford, respectively; the numbers in each case in fairly regular employment; and the numbers that have applied for Poor Law relief during the last three years?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): The best approximate estimate which can be given of the number of labourers engaged at ports in the United Kingdom,
  2132
  in the loading and unloading of vessels, including the storage of goods at dock warehouses and wharves, is from 120,000 to 140,000 As regards the other matters referred to in the question, I am not at present in a position to give statistical details, but if the hon. Member will communicate with the Board of Trade we shall be glad to give him any assistance in our power.

  Islington Labour Exchange (Application of H. B. Tress).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if Mr. Harry B. Tress registered himself as unemployed at the Islington Labour Exchange at 133, Holloway Road, on 6th May, 1910; and, if so, can the President of the Board of Trade say whether any employment has been found for him through the agency of the exchange since that date?
  Mr. TENNANT: Mr. Tress first registered at the exchange on 4th May, 1910, and has since been on the register at intervals for periods of varying length. His qualifications have been submitted to employers who had notified vacancies on various occasions, but on each occasion without success.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the fact that in this time of booming trade there are tens of thousands of men on the register who are in exactly the same position as the man referred to in the question?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not able to answer that question. I should have to examine each case.

  Financial Relations Committee (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the reasons given by certain Irishmen for declining to act on the Financial Relations Committee were that it was appointed for the sole benefit of the Cabinet, that its ex parte character made their agreement with it impossible, and that its secret character precluded the publication of their reasons for disagreeing; and if he will say how many Irishmen declined on these grounds to act on the Committee, and how many declined on other grounds?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must ask the hon. Member to put these questions to the Chief Secretary, as the matter is one in which I have no direct concern. As a matter of courtesy, how-

  2133
  ever, I may say that I have nothing to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member on this matter.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the gentlemen who were asked to serve on the Committee were informed in advance of its secret character, and of the fact that only one of the two countries concerned was to be represented on the Committee?

  Scottish Estimates.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether, as various Reports upon Scottish matters have not yet been published, the Prime Minister will give another day besides the day proposed for Scottish Estimates on which to discuss these matters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider the Noble Lord's suggestion.

  Home Rule (Ireland).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether, under the Government scheme for the grant of Home Rule to Ireland, the Irish Parliament would have power similar to the power possessed by the self-governing Colonies to impose a tariff on goods of British origin imported into Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said before, it is impossible for me to make any statement on such matters as these.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers the question of an Irish tariff was settled at the last election?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of the question.

  Engineer Officers (Royal Navy).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will quote the paragraph in Circular Letter No. 140, of 19th December, 1902, which states that the rate of pay laid down in Table C had reference solely to engineer-officers advanced to the rank of engineer-commander under the regulations then in force; whether he will state under what regulations the engineer-lieutenant who is specially promoted to engineer-commander receives the rate of 24s. a day; whether he will state why the rate of pay laid down in Table C of Circular Letter No. 140, of 19th December, 1902, had reference solely to engineer-officers advanced to the
  2134
  rank of engineer-commander under the regulations then in force for the advancement of engineer sub-lieutenants; and whether these officers on advancement were paid at the rate as laid down in Table C of Circular Letter No. 140, of 19th December, 1902, for engineer-lieutenants?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA): As regards the first part of the question, no statement of the nature indicated was made in the circular letter referred to. When the regulations then in force were altered by the circular letter of the 1st November, 1903, it was then clearly stated that the accelerated promotion temporarily introduced was not intended to carry with it any benefit as regards full pay. The answer to the second part of the question is Order in Council of 24th July, 1901, which was made applicable to engineer officers under the revised regulations announced in December, 1902, by Section viii. of Order in Council of 28th March, 1903. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, it was laid down in Section viii. of Order in Council of 28th March, 1903, that existing regulations for engineer officers were to be applicable to officers under their new titles, except as otherwise provided therein. One of the regulations then existing was that, except in the case of promotion for meritorious service, an officer must serve for eight years on the list of chief engineers (now senior engineer lieutenants) before being eligible for the rank of fleet, engineer (now engineer commander). Officers who have been or may be advanced to the rank of engineer commander after eight years on the senior list of engineer lieutenants, have been and will be paid at the rate laid down for engineer commander in Circular Letter No. 140 of 19th December, 1902, namely, 24s. a day.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Under this Circular will the position not be that the officers will have exactly the same work to do at a different rate of pay, and will this not be a very great disadvantage to the Service? With regard, also, to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave the other day, in which he distinctly said that a pledge was given to these officers that they were to have 24s. a day, has not that pledge been broken?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. In regard to the first part of the Noble Lord's question it will be quite true that engineer-commanders will in some cases be receiving 18s., and in other cases 24s., but there

  2135
  will be difference of seniority in the Service in the two cases. With regard to the second question, at the time that the pledge was given, the engineer-commanders had to serve sixteen years altogether as lieutenants before they became entitled to 24s., and when the change of the rate of promotion was mad those who were promoted more particularly were told that they would not get the higher rate of pay, but would continue at the old rate of 18s. until they had completed their sixteen years.

  Royal Dockyards.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any report as to the cause of accidents which occurred to two workmen named John Bradley and William Forbes at the new dock works at Rosyth; and what was the nature of their injuries and their present condition?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have been informed of the cause of the accidents to these two men. Bradley was injured by a travelling crane running over his finger whilst holding on to crane road on monolith staging. The first finger of his left hand was amputated, and thumb and second finger were lacerated. Forbes was injured by rubble rolling down the face of a quarry and fracturing his right leg. I am glad to say that both men are progressing quite satisfactorily.
  Mr. J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the unsatisfactory nature of the staging?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. No report has been made to me that the staging is unsatisfactory, but I shall inquire into the matter.

  Archer-Shee Case.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet withdrawn the charge contained in the Admiralty Letter of 17th October, 1908, to Mr. Archer-Shee, informing Mr. Archer-Shee that he must remove his son from the Royal Naval College at Osborne, as the Admiralty had come to the conclusion that Mr. Archer-Shee's son had stolen a postal order from the college; and whether he has in any way expressed his regret to Mr. Archer-Shee or his son for having allowed this young gentleman to remain under serious and unfounded charges for two years and five months?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must refer the Noble Lord to the statements made by me in this House on 6th April last, in which he will find both a public withdrawal of the charge and an unqualified expression of regret.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: May I ask whether it has not hitherto been the practice when an unfounded charge has been made and subsequently found to be incorrect to apologise to the individual personally concerned for any pain, trouble and annoyance that may have been caused, and whether in this case, as the charge was one of the grossest character affecting the honour of an officer in His Majesty's Service the usual apology among gentlemen will be made?
  Mr. McKENNA: I hardly think that is a proper question to put in the way of a supplementary question. If the Noble Lord has anything of the kind to ask me, I prefer that he should put it on the Paper.

  Panama Canal.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that when the Panama Canal is opened the whole strategic position in the Pacific will be altered as far as the British Empire is concerned; whether any steps are going to be taken to make Jamaica a proper naval base; whether he is aware that there is on the northern side of Jamaica, near Montego Bay, a perfectly land-locked harbour; whether this harbour has ever been surveyed by the Admiralty; and, if not, whether there is any intention of a survey of this bay being made; and whether there is any intention of recognising the important base that Jamaica will be to the British Empire when the strategic position in the Pacific is altered by the opening of the Panama Canal?
  Mr. McKENNA: No perfectly landlocked harbour near Montego Bay is known. The strategic effect of the opening of the Panama Canal has engaged the attention of the Admiralty.

  Floating Docks.
  Mr. FELLasked if any of the floating docks are completed and ready to take in for repair ships of the "Dreadnought" type; and if the moorings for all the floating docks are prepared?
  Mr. McKENNA: The two large floating docks are not yet completed. The arrange-

  2137
  ments for securing the docks in position will be ready before the docks are delivered by the contractors.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask when those docks will be completed, and if the necessary dredging has been done for the moorings?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question has already been answered. Arrangements will be completed before the docks are delivered. The contract date for delivery is September of the current year, but I anticipate that there may be a certain amount of delay.
  Mr. WHELER: Will they be completed before the end of the financial year?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I hope so.

  North Sea Docks.
  Mr. FELLasked if there is now any dock in the North Sea capable of taking in one of the "Dreadnought" or super "Dreadnought" ships; and if any dock in the North Sea has on any occasion taken in one of these ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: The only British dock at the present time that meets the conditions of the hon. Member's question is the Hebburn Dock, and the "Hercules" is at present in it.

  Scottish Reports.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate when the Report upon the Congested Districts Board, and other Scottish Reports will be published?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The reports of the Local Government Board for Scotland of the Registrar-General for Scotland, and of the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland are already issued, the Report of the Crofters Commission will probably be issued early next week, and every effort is being made to expedite the issue of the other reports. In regard to the report of the Congested Districts Board, I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs.

  Extension of Harbours (Scotland).
  Mr. SUTHERLANDasked if an application has yet been made by the Scottish Office to the Development Commissioners for grants for the extension of harbours on the North-east of Scotland; and, if not, when such application will be made?
  Mr. URE: Applications for grants out of the Development Fund have been made by certain harbour authorities in the North-east of Scotland to the Treasury, and are at present under consideration of the departments interested in terms of the Development Act. As my hon. Friend is aware, certain inquiries have been held, and I understand that reports will shortly be made to the Development Commissioners.

  Small Holdings.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether all the small holdings Commissioners at present appointed, or shortly to be appointed, have agricultural knowledge so as to comply with the provisions of the Act?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Are those people supposed to possess a knowledge of the management of land, or the cultvation of land, or both?
  Mr. GULLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that.

  Gooseberry Mildew.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, in what counties outbreaks of gooseberry mildew have occurred this season; will lie state what is the extent of these outbreaks; and how does the existing prevalence of this disease compare with that in previous years?
  Mr. GULLAND: Up to the 16th instant nine cases of American gooseberry mildew had been reported from Cambridgeshire, three from Huntingdonshire, and two from Hampshire. These cases showed merely traces of mildew on the fruit and young shoots. As yet it is to soon to institute any useful comparison between the outbreaks of this and previous seasons as disease has only just appeared.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the Board not aware that serious cases exist in Gloucestershire at the present time?

  Shops Bill (Hire of Motor Cars).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a statement from the Automobile Association and Motor Union as to the possible difficulties under

  2139
  the Shops Bill in respect to the hire of motor cars on Sundays; and whether he will deal with the point in Committee?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have received a statement on the subject from the association, but I am advised that the hiring of motor cars at, a garage would not come within the scope of the Bill.

  Evening and Day School Regulations.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the President of the Board of Education whether any and, if so, how many of the officials of the Board of Education engaged in the preparation of evening school regulations have ever taught in or been responsible for the conduct of an evening school, and during what periods?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The officers concerned are very well qualified for the work they are required to do. An analysis of their qualifications on the lines suggested would not be relevant to the purposes for which the regulations are framed.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman then consider that practical experience in these matters is a positive disqualification?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have never said so. That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in preparing regulations for the conduct of day and evening schools, elementary and secondary, it is the practice of the Board to obtain advice from those who, by long experience as local administrators or teachers, are familiar with the work of such schools; whether he is aware that regulations prepared and published under the present system frequently evoke considerable criticism, and often have to be hastily changed; whether the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education was established by Parliament for the purpose of advising the Board on educational questions; and whether any of the regulations affecting the schools of the country are ever submitted to the Consultative Committee for their advice before publication?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on this subject on 20th April and 2nd and 8th May, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the last part of my question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the Consultative Committee it is quite true that the Consultative Committee was established by Parliament. That is information which is given in the question.
  Mr. HOARE: The last part of my question is "whether any of the regulations affecting the schools of the country are ever submitted to the Consultative Committee for their advice before publication"?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member wants a return of the subjects submitted to the Consultative Committee I shall be very glad to let him have it. He will then see the subjects which have been dealt with and which are being dealt with.
  Mr. HOARE: Are the regulations included in the subjects dealt with by the Consultative Committee?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman must know the subject discussed by the Consultative Committee must necessarily deal with the regulations.

  Road Board (Grants to Irish Count Councils).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury what county councils in Ireland have so far received grants from the Road Board for road improvements; and how many Irish county councils have applied for grants?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): All the county councils in Ireland (thirty-three in number) have applied for grants. Grants have been indicated to all of them and details of the proposed works of road improvement are now in course of settlement. In only one case so far has the grant been actually received, namely, in the case of Sligo, the county council of which received £2,000 on the 10th instant.

  Increment Value Duty.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, on the sale of land by a deceased owner's executors, the officials of the Land Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue are entitled, under any circumtstances, to demand payment of Increment Value Duty in respect of the sale from the purchaser of the property?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the Noble Lord's question is in the negative.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimate for the current year of the cost of collecting the £50,000 which he expected to receive from the Increment Value Duty?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Apart from the cost of preliminary valuations, which are of permanent utility, the cost of collecting the anticipated yield of Increment Value Duty for the current year will be insignificant.

  National Insurance Bill.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take any steps to safeguard the interests of collectors of industrial insurance companies and collecting societies whose occupation will be jeopardised by the National Insurance Bill?
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked if he has any information as to the number of life insurance agents now being employed throughout the United Kingdom and in Lancashire, respectively; and whether he can indicate how they will be affected by the State Insurance Bill?
  Viscount WOLMERasked whether, in making the appointments to carry out the administration of the National Insurance Bill when it becomes law, he will give priority to those agents of collecting societies or any other persons who can prove that they have been deprived of their employment as the result of that Bill being passed into law?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have already explained to the House more than once, there is not the slightest interference in the Bill with the work of the collecting societies or their agents.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman received, or will he receive, a deputation from the representatives of the societies?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I shall be very glad to receive any representations.
  Mr. BYLES: Would the right hon. Gentleman print the answer with the Votes in order that we may send it to our Constituents?
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the societies and companies in question take a different view?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the contrary, I am quite sure that they do not take that view.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman the number of life insurance agents?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. If the hon. Member puts down a question I will inquire.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give the names and the approximate number of members in each of the societies in Ireland, registered or established under any Act of Parliament, having each at least 5,000 members, which would constitute approved societies for the arministration of benefits under the National Insurance Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is impossible to say what societies in Ireland will be entitled to become approved societies by obtaining a membershop of 5,000 insured persons under the Bill.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the Ancient Order of Hibernians is not included?
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked whether a trade union which, if valued on the friendly society basis, would be found to have insufficient assets to meet all its prospective liabilities would be eligible for admission under the Insurance Bill as an approved society; and whether, if admitted, it would on valuation three years after admission, be required to adopt the financial basis of a friendly society?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An approved society will not be required by the Bill to hold an accumulated reserve against liabilities which are altogether outside the national insurance scheme, or to adopt for such liabilities, the financial basis of a friendly society. For the contributions and benefits provided for in the national scheme, however, it will be required to adopt the financial system contemplated by the Bill, and it will, under the financial Clauses of the Bill, be provided at the commencement with the reserves necessary for that purpose.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: Will trade unions be allowed to use for strike purposes the 4d. per week contributions provided by their own members?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member refers to the 4d. per week levied under the Act they certainly will not be able to use that for such a purpose. It must be used for the purposes prescribed in the Act.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the case of unions of unskilled labourers, which cannot raise much more than this sum, and would be prevented from using their contributions for strike purposes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite wrong. They can raise any levies they like for strike purposes. But the sums levied compulsorily under this scheme, which involve a compulsory levy of 3d. from the employer and another 2d. from the State, surely should not be used for militant purposes against employers.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked whether, under the National Insurance Bill, a woman insured person suffering from scarlet fever would be entitled to sickness benefit of 7s. 6d. per week in cash and medical attendance in addition, whereas such a woman in childbirth would receive only maternity benefit of 30s, for four weeks without medical attendance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not the practice of friendly societies to give sick pay in maternity cases. Consequently the maternity benefit under the Bill (which covers medical attendance) must be regarded as a benefit additional to sickness benefit and not as a substitute for it.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is not this the most generous scheme of maternity insurance ever proposed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is certainly the case. It is much more generous than any scheme of maternity benefit provided by the friendly societies; it is also more generous than any scheme in Germany or any other country.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the National Insurance Bill would go to Grand Committee or whether it would be discussed in Committee of the whole House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Colchester last Monday. The arrangements are still under consideration.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he proposed to exclude from sick and disablement benefit those men and women who might be provided with board and lodging by their employers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The intention of the scheme of National Health insurance is so far as practicable to provide insurance aganst those risks which are not already covered. A person provided with board and lodging by his employer is only excluded from sickness and disablement benefit so long as he is so provided. He is of course, very unlikely to be provided with board and lodging when he would otherwise be entitled to disablement benefit.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain to the House the kind of sickness which, being attributable to an insured person's own misconduct, disqualifies him from sickness or disablement benefit?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend will refer to Clause 13 (4) of the Bill he will see that this is a matter which an approved society will be left to regulate by its own rules. In the actual practice of friendly societies the most usual cases are those of venereal disease or bad cases of drunkenness.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether medical benefit under the National Insurance Bill will include the attendance of a doctor in maternity cases if summoned in an emergency on the advice of a midwife acting under the rules of the Central Midwives Board?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The attendance of a doctor in maternity cases is provided for by the maternity benefit, not by the ordinary medical benefit.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the provisions in the National Insurance Bill for the formation of local health committees, the Government proposed to abandon their Health Visitors Bill or to defer taking its subsequent stages until after the duties of the above committees have been defined by statute?
  Mr. BURNS: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The provisions of the National Insurance Bill do not touch the question of the appoint-

  2145
  ment by local authorities of health visitors, which is the subject dealt with in the Health Visitors Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will there not be danger of overlapping if another local authority is appointed, and a different body is appointed under the National Insurance Bill?
  Mr. BURNS: Not under this Bill. The Health Visitors Bill deals with children under five years of age. The National Insurance Bill does not deal with persons so young as that.

  Revaluation of Property (Ireland).
  Mr. MULDOONasked by what authority the revaluation of property for the purpose of assessments to Income Tax, which took place in Ireland in 1910–11 was made; how many forms of claim for Income Tax, under Schedules A and B, respectively, were issued in each of the years 1908, 1909, and 1910; and what objection there was to setting out on every form of claim the statute under which it was made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reassessment of property in Ireland to Income Tax under Schedules A and B was made in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1853. It is not possible to state the number of demand notes issued. The tax is charged and collected under the provisions of Acts passed from 1842 onwards, and it would not be practicable, nor would it serve any useful purpose, to specify those Acts upon the demand notes.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, because, according to our information, there has been an enormous increase in the number of demand notes issued, and we would like to have the figures?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member will give me any information on the subject, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

  Licence Duty (Hotels in Ireland).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be willing to grant a Return showing by counties the amount of Licence Duty paid by hotels in Ireland before the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, came into operation, the amount paid since, and the amount that would have been payable except for the operation of the provisions of Clause 45 of that Act?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available. I may perhaps add that it seems to be doubtful whether this or any similar return would afford any useful comparison, owing to the fact that the definition of a hotel is different now from what is was before the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
  Mr. MULDOON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the definition must have been arrived at before the assessments were made, and that therefore the information can easily be obtained?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not my information. It is very difficult to make a comparison. The definition is much more elastic under the Act of 1910, and a great many houses which would have been excluded before will now be included in the term.

  Finance Act, 1909–10 (Super-tax).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that the Special Commissioners of Income Tax interpreted the provisions of the Finance Act, 1909–10, and the Finance Act, 1910, which related to Super-tax, to mean that both the liability to pay Supertax in any one year of charge and also the extent of the liability was determined by the statutory income of the previous year, and that the absence of any provision for varying the amount of the liability in the case of the death of an individual whose income was obtained from a life interest pressed upon his representatives; and whether he would introduce a Clause to the Finance Bill for 1911 to vary the liability to Super-tax where the income for the year on which it was charged was materially reduced owing to the death of the tenant for life within the year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question raised by the hon. Member is at present the subject of an appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and pending its settlement in accordance with the provisions of the Law, I am unable to give him the assurance for which he asks.

  Payment of Members.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDasked whether the £400 per annum for Members was to be free of Income Tax; and, if not, whether it would be classed for Income Tax as earned or unearned?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The salaries of Members of Parliament will be liable to Income Tax as earned incomes.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will that apply in the case of a Member who is absent during an entire Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take it that such a Member will have obtained leave of absence from the House, and then it would be treated as sick pay.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Seeing that we are providing that working men shall pay at least a portion of the premium necessary to secure sick pay, will Members of Parliament be expected to pay a premium to obtain this payment in case of sickness?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the cost of elections is their contribution.
  Mr. FELLasked if the payment of Members was to be made according to attendance at the House of Commons; if the payment of 400 per Member was to be a fixed fee; and if allowance was to be made for absence owing to illness or any other cause?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first inquiry is in the negative; to the second in the affirmative; the third, therefore, does not arise.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it is impossible for this House to lay down any conditions as to the payment?
  Mr. FELLasked if any provision was made in the Budget for the payment of the Members of the House of Lords; and if there was any precedent in any country for the Members of one Chamber to be paid whilst the Members of the other Chamber were unpaid?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I believe the Second Chamber in this country to be without a parallel in any other country in the world, and I have no reason to suppose that the problem which faces the man without means who is called upon to take part in politics is one which has in that House reached a very acute form.
  Mr. FELL: I did not ask as to the nature of the House; I asked whether there was any other country where the Members of one Chamber were paid whilst the Members of the other Chamber were unpaid.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My answer to that is "No," because there is no parallel to our present Second Chamber.
  Mr. FELLasked if any additional payment would be made to Members in years when there was an. Autumn Session; and was the payment to be made for the Session or for the year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Payment is to be made by the year.

  Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland).
  Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended that Scotland shall receive an equivalent of the grant to be given to England and Ireland for the superannuation of teachers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not prepared as yet to make any statement as to the intended improvement in teachers' pensions. But I may say that, as the existing provisions in England and Scotland are similar, any change which applies to the former will in all probability apply identically to the latter.

  Special Reserve (Camp Pay).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the week's pay allowed to the Territorials who are Civil servants or Civil subordinates while in annual camp will this year be granted to the Special Reserve, as stated in the War Office Memorandum No. 592/15.7.09 P. and W.R. 2,951; and whether, although the Special Reserve have been up for training two years previous to this, they have not been paid?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): The week's pay in question has never been given to Civil servants or Civil subordinates in the Special Reserve, and there is no present intention of making any such concession. The Memorandum quoted does not refer to the Special Reserve.

  Vaccination (Soldiers' Children in Barracks).
  Mr. WILKIEasked whether the regulations under which children live in barracks with their soldier fathers override the law of the land by requiring the vaccination of such children, irrespective of whether they have been exempted from the operation under Acts of Parliament?
  Mr. ACLAND: The residence in barracks of the families of soldiers is a privilege, and those granted the privilege must comply with the sanitary regulations for the use of the barracks.
  Mr. WILKIEasked what danger was feared to anyone at the Tempe barracks by Staff-Quartermaster-sergeant Stickney's healthy children, who had been; legally exempted under the English law, being allowed to remain unvaccinated?
  Mr. ACLAND: The residence in barracks of families who are unvaccinated is regarded as a danger to the health of the troops quartered there owing to the possible risk of infection. I do not know whether Staff-Quartermaster-sergeant Stickney's children had been legally exempted from vaccination or not, but this would not affect the requirement of vaccination for all persons residing in bar, racks.
  Mr. J. WARD: Do we understand that the War Office think they are above the law of the country?
  Mr. ACLAND: Not at all; but the War Office are responsible for the health of the troops in barracks.
  Mr. J. WARD: Even if they destroy the children in so doing?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman think that vaccination is a means of improving the health of the soldiers?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is certainly a means of preserving the soldiers from the risk of -infection from small-pox.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to compensate Staff-Quartermaster-sergeant H. B. Stickney, of the Army Ordnance Corps, for the treatment he has received owing to his justified refusal to have his exempted children vaccinated?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir. As Mrs. Stickney stated that the children had been successfully vaccinated—which was untrue —and Staff-Quartermaster-sergeant, Stickney undertook in writing to have them vaccinated on board ship—an undertaking which he refused to carry out as soon as the ship had sailed—I cannot consider that his conduct was justified.

  Military Authorities and Footpaths (Canterbury).
  Mr. BYLESasked whether the military authorities have yet removed the obstructions which have been illegally placed in certain public footpaths within the county of Canterbury, in violation of the ancient rights of the citizens and to the annoyance of the neighbouring population?
  Mr. ACLAND: The matter is being investigated, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result in due course.

  Army Estimates.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he can say when the promised day will be given for general discussion on the Army?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this point.

  Royal Artillery (Army Promotion from the Ranks).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that only twenty-one commissions have been granted to the Royal Artillery warrant officers during the last five years, 1906 to 1911, as against 121 the previous five years, 1900 to 1905, he can hold out any encouragement to those warrant officers who are qualified that there will be offered some commissions within a reasonable time?
  Mr. ACLAND: The reply is in the affirmative. It is hoped that about twelve vacancies will occur for quartermasters within the next three years. As regards promotion to district officer, however, there is no immediate prospect of vacancies arising.

  Indoor Pauperism (Cost).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether the cost of indoor pauperism, estimated to be £13 per head in 1909, includes the cost of salaries and superannuation allowances, loan charges, and buildings?
  Mr. BURNS: On the basis of the total expenditure in England and Wales under all items of indoor relief, including those mentioned in the question, the average cost per head for the year 1908–9 was about £27 15s., as shown in the last Annual Report of the Local Government Board.

  Magistrates and Passive Resistance.
  Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether any cases have been brought to his notice of magistrates who have taken an active part in passive resistance to the Education Act of 1902; whether he is aware of the feeling which exists among magistrates generally that such persons who have taken an oath to administer the law as they find it should, being law-breakers themselves, not be allowed to adjudicate on other lawbreakers; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. No such cases have been brought to my notice, and I see no reason for any action on my part.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: If any cases are brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will he take action?
  Mr. W. BENN: I will communicate the Noble Lord's desire to my right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I desire to ask the Prime Minister three questions. The first is: Will he be good enough to tell us what the business for next week is? The second is: What opportunity does he propose to give to the House to discuss the question of the payment of Members? The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that objection was raised to any discussion on the subject on the Budget, and therefore I presume he will afford the House the opportunity asked for. The third question is: Whether he is prepared to tell us anything further about the holidays?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, the business will be the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions; and, if time permits, we hope to take some of the small Bills on the Notice Paper.
On Tuesday, Supply (Irish Votes) will be taken.
On Wednesday, we shall take the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill: the discussion on that will be continued on Thursday.
2152
In reply to the further question of the right hon. Gentleman it may be for the convenience of the Members if I say that the Government propose that the House should meet after the Whitsuntide Recess on Tuesday, June 13th. With regard to the other question put by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, and the Government think, that it is quite reasonable and proper that the House should have a full opportunity of discussing t lie principles involved in the proposal for the payment of Members. An adequate opportunity for that purpose would not be afforded for that purpose by the mere production of Supplementary Estimates, though, of course, that will be necessary. In order to meet the case, we shall put down a Government Resolution on the Paper. Of course it will be open to Amendment. But I think this will afford opportunity for adequate discussion.
Mr. LONSDALE: When?
The PRIME MINISTER: Not till after Whitsuntide.
Mr. LONSDALE: What Irish Supply will be taken on Tuesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: Education comes first.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wilt take measures to enable us to make certain of taking the Second Reading of the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill before we adjourn for Whitsuntide? It is a purely non-contentious Bill, but the Second Reading of it has been blocked night after night by one or two Members. It it was put first on the Notice Paper, it probably would not take an hour?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope and expect we shall be able to do so.
Mr. BOOTH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated yesterday that the actuarial data upon which the National Insurance Bill is founded would be in our possession only on Tuesday, and does he consider that twenty-four hours is sufficient for the great interests to examine these data, which have taken years to prepare?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that they will be in possession of the House on Monday.

BILL PRESENTED.
  PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the law relating to the payment of pensions to governors of any part of His Majesty's Dominions or any British Protectorate, or persons holding a similar office," presented by Mr. HORHOUSE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.
  SUPPLY.— [8th Allotted Day, 20th March.]—REPORT.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
    Resolution Reported—"That a sum, not exceeding £388,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve (including Seamen Pensioner Reserve), and the Royal Naval Volunteers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: As I be hove there is some sort of agreement whereby these Votes are to go through as soon as possible on account of the fact that the Government are giving an extra day for the discussion of the Navy, I shall not trespass beyond asking the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty a few questions. The reserve for the Fleet is, as everyone recognises, one of the most important things in preparation for war. As far as the Royal Naval Reserve goes it is principally formed of mercantile marine seamen, and fishermen. The danger of the present system is that if we were suddenly to go to war our Navy would be hampered to this extent. It is the business of the Navy to do everything it can to allow the mercantile marine to carry out its duty wherever possible. There are 18,500 men who under the present system would be taken from the mercantile marine at the very moment when they would be most required. The First Lord will understand that there is no complaint for allowing the men to remain in the mercantile marine as long as possible. As far as the Royal Fleet Reserve goes, nothing could be more satisfactory than the 22,000 or 23,000 men who passed from the Navy to that Reserve, but I am talking of the Royal Naval Reserve. That you were very short of men
    2154
    was evident from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to my question, which showed that he joined 12,900 men and boys this year. The country and the House believed from the Estimates that you only joined 3,000, but you did join 12,900. This will effect the Reserve very considerably, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman did he join these men because we were short of men in the Navy that year? The right hon. Gentleman puts into the Estimate in Vote A only the cost both for the Fleet Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve and the Volunteer Reserve. There are no particulars beyond what the amount is. Now with regard to the medical part of the Reserve, they must be very few because the whole sum taken is only £1,100. I do not like to trespass upon this question, as we have not yet the result of the Durham Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that in time of war we should have a proper Reserve Medical Department and a proper staff for nursing and so on. What we have at present is not fit to go on board ship, and they are totally unfitted to do the duties which fall to them in the time of war. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some hint that he will increase the Reserve so far as the Medical Department goes, for the Fleet in time of war. This Reserve is very short indeed, and I do hope something will be done to increase it.
    There is another point, and that is the sick berth staff. The men of the general Reserve will never be able to do that duty, and there are a large amount of these billets that could be filled by men who have passed through the Navy. These men know their work thoroughly; they are accustomed to accidents on board ship and to accidents that often cause death, and they would be invaluable in time of war. I see, in an answer the right hon. Gentleman has given, that he puts clown the men who joined the Special Service in the Special Service Estimates at 345. Does he mean these to be Short Service men, and will he tell me whether he has increased the number of Short Service men or decreased them? I have before told the right hon. Gentleman my opinion of these men in the Fleet. They are not good men, and not the men we ought to have in the Service. They are specially joined to go into the Reserve. I shall be very glad to know whether there has been an increase or a decrease this year in the numbers; these are the only points I wish to raise.
    4.0 P.M.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): In pursuance of the arrangement arrived at, the Noble Lord has been extremely brief, and I am very much obliged to him for it. I will reply to his questions in the same brief terms, and I hope to be able to satisfy him in every point he raised. As regards the service of the Royal Naval Reserve men in time of war, it was largely with a view to meeting the very point which the Noble Lord has now emphasised that the Royal Fleet Reserve has been so much extended as was the case in the last few years, and I need hardly say how gladly I welcome the appreciation of the establishment of the Reserve by the Noble Lord. We are increasing the Royal Fleet Reserve year by year. The total of the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve has been for some years now slowly rising, but the Royal Naval Reserve has been diminishing and the Royal Naval Fleet Reserve increasing. This year has been an exception to previous years. Of the two branches now the Royal Fleet Reserve is the larger, and, of course, in the event of war the first, call will be presumably upon the Royal Fleet Reserve. It would be impossible to say what in the long run we might require in the way of calling up our Reserves, but in the early stages of the war I do not think we should need more than the Volunteers from the Royal Naval Reserve. A certain number would be willing to volunteer immediately, whether we should have to call all up is a matter of opinion which can only be formed at the last moment. Therefore, the general policy is to meet the Noble Lord's view and in the first instance to look to the Royal Fleet Reserve. As regards the number of men entered last year, which, as I stated in reply to a question of the Noble Lord, was something over 12,000, he must not overlook the fact that a great part of these entries were made in order to supply normal wastage. That is to make up the additional 3,000 men. I forget how the figures exactly stood at the close of last financial year, but in making up an average of 3,000 we had to enter more than that number. The Noble Lord suggests that the form of the estimate might be amended to give the numbers of the Fleet Reserve. Although the numbers are given, I admit they are somewhat hidden, and I can quite understand that they may have escaped the Noble Lord's notice. If, however, he will look on page 11 of Vote A he will find that
    2156
    the numbers of the reserve are given there as "Royal Fleet Reserve 24,700." I admit that the volume of the Navy Estimates is so large and contains such an enormous number of items that these matters are difficult to find, but I will take into account the observation which the Noble Lord has made on this point. With regard to special service class the intention is to keep them, at any rate as regards the seamen class, more or less at their present number. I think the Noble Lord is a little hard upon the special service class. When they enter the reserve they have had five years' training, and in any other country than ours they would be regarded as long-service men. Nearly all the navies of the world are manned by men with no more than three years' service, and I am a little unwilling to believe that in five years' service we are unable to make a man properly qualified to enter the Navy Reserve.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: My point was that when the men originally enter they are not the right class of men because they are not good men, and after five years' service they will not be good men. They are not the same class as those who, join the Royal Navy. I am speaking from my own experience of these men as a commander, and I say that they are not the class of men we ought to have in the Navy.
    Mr. McKENNA: Of course I am not so competent to judge on this point as the Noble Lord, but I know that a large number of them are drawn from precisely the same class as those who enter the Royal Navy, the difference being that special service men enter later, and have not had the advantage of training as boys like the ordinary seamen get. But after two or three years, according to the reports I have received, these special service seamen are quite suited to the service they are called upon to render, and I should view with a great alarm any alteration in the system of filling up our Fleet Reserve. The Noble Lord has asked me about the Medical Reserve. If he will look into the Votes he will find there is an item of £1,500 for the Medical Reserve. There are a large number of proposals before the Admiralty, and more than one problem is involved in giving sanction to the recommendations of the Committee. Therefore at the present moment I am not prepared to say more than is contained in the Estimates. Throughout the Estimates we are

    2157
    proposing this year a sum of £20,000 to carry out some of the recommendations of the Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £532,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
    Resolution agreed to.

    HALF-PAY AND RETIRED PAY.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £926,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Half-pay and Retired Pay to officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
    Resolution agreed to.

    NAVAL AND MARINE PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND COST PASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,468,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
    Motion made, and question proposed, "That the House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I wish to ask a question about the regulations relating to the allowances to the widows of officers and men who are slain in action. There is very little given to the widows and orphans of these men who lose their lives in the Service. I maintain that a man who is blown up in the boiler-room, who dies from sunstroke or dysentery through hard work is losing his life just as much in the service of the country as the man who is killed by shot and shell, and the country should take care of those he leaves behind. The Admiralty do recognise this to a certain extent, but only in regard to the question of gratuity or compensation, and it is not a pension. I think the scale of allowance in the case of a man who is slain is 5s. a week to the widow and 1s. 6d. per child. In the case of a second petty officer the amount is 6s., a first petty officer 7s. 6d., and a. chief petty officer 9s. Gratuities are only allowed to the widows and
    2158
    children if the man dies within two years of the accident.
    There is one case which is particularly hard, and that is the case of insanity. We have a large number of those who are injured in the spine sent to the asylum, and in these cases the widow does not get a single penny out of that man's pay, because what he is entitled to goes to the asylum. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put this matter right. This is a substantial grievance, because, although such a man does not lose his life it is often worse for the widow, because she has to support her husband, which she would not have to do if he had been killed. I was delighted the other day when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise these cases, and state that they were more or less a scandal to this country. This is a rich country, and these men are ready to go out and be shot perfectly cheerily any time they are called upon, and as far as the Navy goes the men are always on active service. They are upon active service all the time, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look after these widows who are so tremendously handicapped by their husbands being injured and rendered perfectly incapable of employment.
    Mr. HOHLER: I wish to raise a point connected with the Greenwich Hospital Age Pension Fund. I think it is now generally recognised that the only means we have of calling attention to this matter is by Debate in this House. The point I wish to raise is the question of the fulfilment of a promise which has been made publicly to the men in the Navy. I have in my hand the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty made to a deputation of these men who asked that their payments should be made under the Greenwich Hospital Age Fund. On 16th November, 1909, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty put in writing his answer to the deputation as follows: —
    "Dear Mr. O'Neal,
    "To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I think it is desirable to repeat in writing the statement which I made this morning to the deputation from the Naval Pensioners' Association.
    "I am glad to take this opportunity of stating that the Treasury have agreed that the cost of age pensions to the men of the Seamen Pensioner Reserve, which has hitherto been automatically transferred to Greenwich Hospital Funds on the men attaining fifty-five years of age, shall, as from the 1st April, 1910,, continue to be borne by Naval Funds until such time as these men be granted age pensions from Greenwich Hospital Funds in the ordinary course of selection from the whole body of pensioners.
    "This concession will, I am glad to say, have the effect of adding a fairly respectable sum to the amount available for the award of fresh Age pensions."

    2159
    That was a very clear and definite statement. It is important to bear in mind with regard to the general body of the Navy who are eligible for this pension that they come on at the age of sixty-three and sixty-four, whereas the men belonging to the Seaman Pensioner Reserve are transferred upon attaining fifty-five years of age. We are, of course, grateful for what the Admiralty propose to do, and if I am right in the interpretation which I put upon the Financial Secretary's language it admits of no doubt as to what is meant. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, speaking on 20th March last, said: —
    "What we did from the let of April was this. We have taken off the Greenwich Hospital Fund from the age of fifty-five to the average age at which, in other circumstances, they would come upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund, all. Seamen Pensioner Reserves, and made their pensions a charge upon Naval Funds.
    "Mr. Hohler: At what age?
    "Dr. Macnartrira: At about sixty-four.
    Mr. Hohler: I can supply the names of several at sixty-four who have not got on.
    "Dr. Macnamara: We have to consider if a man has a reasonable competence, and that some other men are more necessitous. The Seamen Pension Reserves came upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund at fifty-five. We have now taken them off the Greenwich Hospital Fund at fifty-five up to the age they would otherwise come upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund, that is sixty-four, and made them a charge upon Naval Funds. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to page 168 of the Estimates, Vote 14, he will see that under the head of 'Pensions and Gratuities to Seamen and Marines, the amount estimated shows an increase of £45,000. I think a considerable portion of that is due to the fact that we have taken the Pensioner Reserve off and kept him on Naval Funds until he reaches the age when, together with other applicants, he might come on the Greenwich Hospital Fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March. 1911, col. 188.]
    That is a very clear and definite statement. I thought at the time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, though his intention was excellent, had made a mistake with regard to the figure. I desire at once to acknowledge he himself said he would look into it, and he approached me and told me that upon examination of the Vote he found he had made a mistake. The result, therefore, is that no provision has been made to carry out the promise made to these men in December, 1909. If you turn to Vote 14, Sub-head C, you will find that, so far from £45,000 going to provide their pensions, the only possible increase is one of £4,000, and in fact what the Parliamentary Secretary thought he had done has not been done. I do not doubt the perfect good faith of the Admiralty in this matter, but I want that promise publicly given carried out, and I want the men of the Seamen Pensioner Reserve transferred from the Greenwich Hospital Age Fund to the
    2160
    Naval Fund until in the ordinary course they would come upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund—that is to say, at sixty-four, or it may be sixty-three—so as to put them exactly in the same position as the rest. This is a fund intended for the whole body of the Navy, and the Seamen Pensioner Reserve is a Reserve created for the benefit of the nation, and it should be a charge on the Naval Fund. I say unhesitatingly that the whole method of dealing with this Greenwich Age Fund has been for years nothing more nor less than a misapplication of a trust. It has been recognised, and in December, 1909, the Parliamentary Secretary made a definite promise to the men that this should be done, and in the Debate he stated it had been done. That is an error, and all I ask is that it should be done. Therefore, I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £100, to try and ensure this shall be carried out.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already put the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee," and I cannot put the reduction, but I have no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Parliamentary Secretary will reply.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford), says that if a man is killed in action his widow gets a pension and his child an allowance, but if a man is killed other than in action, say by an explosion or something of that sort, the widow gets no pension and the child no allowance. I think he is wrong. If a man is killed in action, his widow gets a pension and his children an allowance from the Naval Fund. The widow of a man killed in an accident, say, an explosion, gets, so I am advised, precisely the same pension and his children get precisely the same allowance, partly from the Naval Fund and partly by an augmentation from the Greenwich Hospital Fund. That is how the matter stands. If the Noble Lord will look at page 172, Vote 14 (K), he will see there is provision for augmentation from the Greenwich Hospital Fund in the case he has in mind. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) raised the question of the Seamen Pensioner Reserve and our transference of their pension from the Greenwich Hospital Fund to the Naval Fund as from 1st April last year. There seems to be a misapprehension. All the men who get the Greenwich Hospital

    2161
    Pension, with the exception of the Special Greenwich Pension, which is given to the men who have not served long enough to get a Naval Life Pension, are men in receipt of Naval Life Pensions. I am afraid that is not generally understood. There are men on the Greenwich Hospital Pension Fund whose naval life pension amounts to as much as £44 per year. What we have to do is to take each case and consider the necessitous character of the applicant and the smallness of the pension and, if we can, augment it as far as the funds will allow. The Seamen Pensioner Reserve was established in 1870, and, as an inducement to recruits, an undertaking was given them that they should come upon the Greenwich Hospital Pension Fund in augmentation of their Naval life pension at fifty years of age, or five years earlier than the other Naval Life Pensioners were eligible to come on. I am not going into that proceeding. It was the subject of considerable comment. Those men remain on the Greenwich Hospital Pension Fund for the augmentation of their Naval life pension from fifty-five up to the age at which other pensioners come on the Naval Pension Fund, that is about sixty-four or sixty-five. Then we said that, as from 1st. April last year, we would make t he charge for this augmentation on Naval funds and not on the Greenwich Hospital Fund up to the age at which a man might ordinarily come upon Greenwich Hospital funds. Using the words "taken off" suggested that what we did was to take off up to the age of sixty-four, or thereabouts, all the men of the Seamen Pensioner Reserve, instead of which the men of the Seamen Pensioner Reserve who are on the Greenwich Hospital Fund now remain on, but, as from 1st April, in all future cases Naval funds, and not the Greenwich Hospital Fund, will bear the augmentation from fifty-five up to about sixty-four. That is the change we have made. It is not retrospective, and I ought not, to have used the words "taken off." I imagine the hon. Member thinks that as from 1st April last year we took all the men in receipt of Greenwich Hospital pensions right off and put them on Naval Votes. That is not what happened, and I am sorry that I put the matter in such a way, which no doubt I did, as to make it appear retrospective. What we did was to let the men remain, but for the future the Seamen Pensioner Reserve will come on Naval funds for augmentation, and not on the Greenwich Hospital Pension Fund, until he reaches the age at which he would
    2162
    otherwise be eligible to receive the Greenwich Hospital Pension. As a matter of fact, the result of that change enabled us last year to give 70 per cent. more Greenwich Hospital pensions than in the year before. In addition to that, we transferred as from the same date from the Greenwich Hospital Fund to Naval Votes the cost of the maintenance of the Lunatic Pensioners at Yarmouth, costing roughly about £2,000 a year. I hope I have made perfectly clear the change which I am glad to say took place on 1st April last year.
    Mr. FALLE: It is rather late in asking a question, but I should like to draw the attention of the right lion. Gentleman to one small point on the subject of pensions. If a man who is in receipt of a pension, say, for the loss of a limb, is fortunate enough to obtain a civil appointment and a small weekly wage, his pension is immediately dropped? That seems to me to be a grossly unfair thing to do. The case I have in mind is that of a first-class petty officer in receipt of a pension for the loss of his leg. It is just enough to keep life in him and no more. When he reported himself the second year, the doctor asked him if he was not able to obtain employment. He said, very cheerfully, "I am glad to tell you, sir, I am now caretaker in a store, receiving 10s. a week," and within ten days he found his pension had been cut £4 10s., and, as he told me with a sickly smile, "none of my mates who unfortunately come into my position will, I think, be anxious to obtain civil appointments." This is a thing which, it seems to me, should be remedied and remedied at once. If a man is in receipt of a pension for the loss of a limb he should not have that pension cut if he is able or fortunate enough to obtain civil employment. There is one small point more I wish to make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make special arrangements in the Insurance Bill for the Navy and Army. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his great influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have this done at once. There is apparently a surplus of nearly half-a-million, and there could be no better use of that surplus than to take, say, a quarter-of-a-million to attend to the wants and absolute necessities of the men in the Navy. As my colleague truly said, men who lose their lives in the Navy through accident in a time of peace have given

    2163
    their lives for their country just the same as if they had been killed in a time of war, and their widows and representatives and their children should be properly looked after. The whole scale of pensions should, in my humble opinion, be largely increased.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY [20th March].—REPORT.

    CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £395,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
    Question again proposed; Debate resumed.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY [15th March].—REPORT.

    HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NONEFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,808,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards; Half-Pay; Retired Pay; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."
    Resolution agreed to.

    PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN AND OTHERS.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,900,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; of Out-Pensions; Rewards for Distinguished Services; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. HUNT: I wish to ask a question on this Vote with regard to the pensions allowed to men who are discharged from the Army because they suffer from consumption or some other disease which they have contracted during their service. These men are sent down into the country with a pension of 6d. or 8d. a day, on which it is impossible for them to live, and the result is they reside in cottages and spread the disease amongst the people, I have had two or three bad cases in the county of Shropshire brought under my notice. I want to ask whether the new National Insurance Scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make better provision for these cases? I think these men are treated at the present time in a scandalous way. The War Office has no right to take the best years of a man's life and then, because he is suffering from some disease as the result of the exposure to which his military duties subject him, to throw him aside like an old coat and to send him back from whence he came with a very inadequate pension to do the best he can for himself. Either his friends or relatives have to keep him, or he has to go into the workhouse. That is the state of things which ought to be altered.
    Mr. HOHLER: I want to call attention to an individual case which was laid before the Secretary of State for War in a question in this House in June, 1910, and has been the subject of subsequent correspondence. I have personally investigated the case, and, so far as I am able to form an opinion, this man has suffered a great injustice. He served in the East Yorkshire Regiment in India for about seven years, obtaining the rank of corporal. While in India he contracted rheumatism, and that was undoubtedly due to exposure to the monsoons. He was in bed for thirteen weeks in India. He then returned to this country, and he was invalided from Netley Hospital with a pension for twenty-one months of 10d. per day, the pension expiring in 1901. The man is eaten up with rheumatism. He is unable to do any work of any sort. Seeing that he was granted a pension to begin with in recognition of the fact that he had contracted the disease in the Service, I think his case deserves further consideration. The Secretary for War did cause inquiries to be made at Chelsea Hospital, and it was reported that the man was invalided for flat feet. Well,

    2165
    that is often a result of rheumatism. What I ask now is an undertaking that this case shall be again investigated, and if possible considered by an independent board of examiners. I do so because the man has nothing but the workhouse in front of him.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): I will give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member. I will make quite sure that this case is specially looked into. I do not know the particulars, but I believe the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have the power to refer cases of this kind to an independent medical board, and if it is possible to do so in this case a fresh report shall certainly be obtained. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division of Shropshire (Mr. Hunt) I quite agree that it is very hard that a man who has served in the Army for the usual period of seven years, and who developes consumption during his service and is consequently discharged, receives so small a pension. Our Regulations are at present determined by the phrase "in and by"; "if any injury or disease has been contracted in and by the Service," we recognise that as qualifying for compensation or pension. It is a fact that very often perfectly fair medical boards decide that though a man has become consumptive, it is not specially attributable to his service, but quite apart from any hardship or exposure to which his service had subjected him. But the main point raised by the hon. Member is as to whether these cases will be differently dealt with when the National Insurance Bill is passed. I can answer that in the affirmative. Special provision is to be made for the case of soldiers discharged from the Army for diseases such as consumption, if and when it can be shown to be attributable to the Service.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION AND GRATUITIES.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £153,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Additional and Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities, and Injury Grants, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
    Resolution agreed to.

    SUPPLY.
    Considered in Committee.
    (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
    [Mr. FENWICK in the Chair.]

  REVENUE DEPARIMF.NTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12— [Progress].

    POST OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,682,445, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): When I introduced last year the Post Office Estimates the sum for which I had to ask the sanction of the House of Commons amounted to nearly £20,000,000. The total Vote this year is somewhat over £21,000,000; the increase on the year is a million and a-quarter. I think it is right that at the outset I should explain the cause of this somewhat large growth in Post Office expenditure. If is chiefly due to the fact that on the 1st January next the Postmaster-General will take over the business of the National Telephone Company, and that the working expenses of the first quarter of next year, which, of course, is the last quarter of our financial year, have now to be sanctioned by this House. The working expenses for the National Telephone Company for those three months are estimated to amount to £480,000. In addition there are expenses connected with the inventory now being taken of the National Telephone Company's plant, amounting to £131,000. There are, too, certain expenses for the rearrangement of telephone equipment (which do not fall on capital expenditure) of £187,000, so that the total expenditure which the House of Commons is now asked to sanction arising from the telephone transfer at the end of this year amounts to £798,000. In addition to that there is an allowance for the normal growth in Post Office work, which this year is estimated at £343,000, and there is an increase in the telephone capital repayment charges of £62,000. These various items altogether amount to a sum of just over £1,200,000. There is also certain expenditure for a new cableship and an increased estimate for the payment in respect of the West Indian Mail Subsidies,

    2167
    and some smaller items. I think the Committee will see that this increase of one and a-quarter millions in the Post Office expenditure can be sufficiently accounted for in a manner to which the Committee is not likely to take exception. The estimated revenue to meet the expenditure of £21,000,000 of the Post Office will be a sum of £25,740,000, showing an increase, I am glad to say, of nearly £2,000,000 over the corresponding estimate of last year. Of this, £850,000 is new revenue in respect of the first quarter of the next calendar year's telephone business—revenue which now goes to the National Telephone Company, but which will in future come to the Post Office. Rather over £1,000,000 is due to an increase in receipts in other directions, and the estimated Post Office profit for the year will be £4,658,000 on the Post Office Vote, showing an increase of £686,000 compared with last year. But it should be remembered that there are certain other items which do not figure in the Vote of my Department, and they have to be taken into consideration each year. The Post Office renders various services to other Departments and receives no payment in respect of them, but on the other hand other Departments render services to the Post Office and no item figures for these services in the Post Office Vote. Particularly is that the case with the Office of Works, which has a large amount voted each year for new Post Office buildings and the maintenance and alteration of existing buildings. On balance there is each year a sum of over £600,000 which is really Post Office expenditure, but which does not figure in Post Office Votes, and the actual profit on the Post Office services for the coming year may be calculated, not at £4,658,000, as it appears on the Post Office Estimates, but at about £4,000,000, at which amount it would appear if all the estimates of the various Departments were taken together.
    So far with respect to the financial aspect of the Estimates which I now lay before the Committee. I have announced during the course of the last twelve months, on various occasions, several improvements in postal and telegraph services, and one or two other contemplated improvements which I shall be able to communicate to the Committee to-day, and which will, I trust, add to the convenience of the public and the improvement of communications. I am sure when
    2168
    I am making these announcements the Committee will remember that several of them have been advocated in previous years by one who was for a very long period a member of this House, but whom we all miss to-day in discussing on these Estimates—Mr. Henniker Heaton —who has for a very long period stood in much the same relation to the Postmaster-General as His Majesty's Opposition stand to His Majesty's Government. He has been a watchful, and industrious, and a public spirited critic of postal administration, and has done very much to direct public attention to the improvement of postal and telegraphic communication, and to reforms in many directions. I feel sure I am speaking the sentiment of all quarters of the House when I say that we all miss his presence to-day, and especially regret the ill-health, which is the cause of it. I have already announced that on Coronation day I propose to introduce a reform which has for many years been desired—the sale of thin post-cards and letter-cards at a halfpenny and a penny respectively, the face value of the stamps upon them. As I understand the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) proposes to make some remarks on this subject, I think it is necessary that I should say a few words with respect to the opposition to this proposal which has come from the stationery trade.
    The hon. Member, I believe, is of opinion that steps should have been taken before announcing this concession to the public to have ascertained what view had been taken of the sale of these articles at the face value by the stationery trade, but it was, of course, obvious what view would be taken by that trade. Their opposition was foreseen, and it would have served little useful purpose to have gone to them beforehand and asked them whether they would desire to see Post Office competition with their business extended to the comparatively small extent as I think it is which this reform involves. The reasons why I am carrying out this alteration are as follows. Under a new and much more satisfactory contract which has been entered into by the Government for the production of stamps and Post Office stationery, the cost of these articles to the Post Office has been very greatly reduced, and the actual cost of the thin post-card to the Post Office will be one fifty-eighth of a penny. It is impossible to defend the charge to the public

    2169
    of one-fourth of a penny—of a farthing—for an article which costs us only one-fifty-eighth of a penny. It would mean that the Post Office was making a profit of 1,300 per cent. on its expenditure, and if you take packets of eleven post-cards and consider the charge of a halfpenny made for the material of those packets the Post Office would still be making a profit of 150 per cent. on its expenditure. It is clearly impossible for any Postmaster-General to defend a profit so exorbitant as this, and as a satisfactory margin of profit would still remain on the halfpenny and the penny respectively in view of the cost of handling these articles and taking them from the place where they are posted to their destination—as a satisfactory profit would still remain, even although the actual cardboard was given away gratis, I felt I was unable to resist the desires expressed in this House and outside it that we should do what every other country in the world does, with the single exception of Holland, and sell the post-cards at their face value.
    Similar considerations apply with respect to the letter-cards, and I would point out that the principle is no new one, even for this country, since for very many years past we have been accustomed to purchase from the Post Office foreign post-cards for a penny, and to pay nothing at all for the stationery value of the card itself. I would add that the trade which is now enjoyed by the stationery industry in private postcards for the use of the public is a completely new trade, and was only rendered possible by a concession on the part of one of my predecessors in the year 1894, when he allowed plain correspondence cards to be used as post-cards with a halfpenny adhesive stamp attached to them. Previous to that only cards which had been officially stamped were available as postcards, and I think it is no great demand for the Post Office to make upon the stationery trade to recall, if we do recall, some small portion of the business which has been really placed in their hands owing to a concession of the Post Office itself only a few years ago. I do not think the trade need have any great alarm that any large proportion of their business will be diverted. There will no doubt be some growth in the sale of official post-cards and letter-cards at the cost of the sale of private post-cards and letter-cards, and, possibly, to some small extent, of stationery, but I do not think that there will be any large transfer of busi-
    2170
    ness. Very many people do not like the thin post-cards, but like the larger card with their address stamped on it Many of them do not wish to use a card and lose a halfpenny in case that card should be spoiled—a consideration which, I think, appeals particularly to the ladies, who have always been assumed to be the more extravagant half of the community, but who undoubtedly are, of course, by far the more economical.
    Nor need the trade feel alarmed that this may be a precedent and that before very long halfpenny wrappers and Post Office stamped envelopes may also be sold at the fact value. There is no contemplation of steps in that direction. The halfpenny newspaper post and the packet post is unremunerative and in a very different position to the post-card and the letter-card post which can be profitably carried at a halfpenny and a penny respectively, but the newspaper, which is much more bulky and weighty, is unremunerative to carry at a halfpenny, and the Post Office would not propose to increase its loss by selling the wrappers at the face value. Nor is there any good reason why official envelopes should be sold at face value. I certainly have no intention of proceeding in that direction, and though J cannot pledge my successors, I suppose the, same considerations would weigh with, them also. I propose to make two alterations in the present practice with a view to meeting the objections of the stationery trade. The present post-cards are sold not only singly, but in uncut sheets, for the convenience of printing and distribution. I see no reason why the Post Office should supply post-cards at face value for these purposes and give special facilities for wholesale firths to obtain their stationery for nothing in this way, and consequently I propose to discontinue the practice or selling the thin post-cards in uncut sheets.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Altogether?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. I have made arrangements, however, to allow, under certain conditions, the free stamping of official stamps upon any post-cards privately manufactured and which are presented for stamping, so that any stationer or stationery manufacturer who has a private order for post-cards can get them stamped if he desires with the official stamp. That would be an advantage to the trade-and to the Post Office, because we should pro tanto be saved from supplying an equal number of post-cards. I propose that,

    2171
    these facilities should not be limited to London but to make arrangements for the stamping in Edinburgh, Dublin, and Manchester, as well as in London. I believe that neither public opinion outside, nor the Members of this Committee, will support what is an avowedly self-interested trade agitation against the conferring of an advantage upon the public which has been very long desired, and which will be of great utility. The reform will therefore be carried out on Coronation Day. At the same time I propose to place upon sale the books containing stamps which have previously been sold for the sum of 2s., but which have only contained 1s.11½d worth of stamps, the other halfpenny being charged in respect of the cost of manufacture. I propose to place in these books the full 2s. worth of stamps. I am glad to say that the Government have been able to arrange for the cheapening of the manufacture of these hooks, and I have also made an arrangement for an increase of the advertisements contained in them, so that the cost of manufacture will be fully covered by the revenue which the books themselves will bring. I anticipate a very large sale of these books when they contain full value. At the same time, on Coronation Day, the public will be able to obtain most of the new issue of stamps bearing the effigy of King George. Most of them have been designed by the distinguished Australian artist—Mr. Bertram McKennal—and some have been designed by a designer of great ability, Mr. Eve, and I trust the public will regard them as an improvement in appearance on the issues which have preceded them.
    At the same time, I think it should be pointed out that in this country to some extent we sacrifice appearance, in stamps as in so many other things, to utility. Our stamps in some respects present rather a less satisfactory appearance than the stamps, for example, of the United States of America, not on account so much of inferiority of design as of the process in printing which is here used. We use the process called surface printing, and the reason for that is that the other process, which gives a somewhat handsomer appearance to the stamp, the process of printing by engraving, is open to objection on the ground that the stamp, which is cancelled by writing across it, as our revenue stamps are, can in some cases be cleaned and used by fraudulent persons
    2172
    a second time. In the United States postage stamps are not used for revenue, and therefore they are able to employ the process of engraving for the production of their postage stamps. Here our stamps up to the denomination of half-a-crown are used for revenue purposes and it is essential, therefore, so far as the present development of this art has extended, that these stamps should be printed by the surface-printing process, which does not allow quite so good an appearance. I hope that will be taken into account by members of the public when they criticise, as no doubt they will, the new stamps, which will shortly be before them. For the first time, I have provided in this issue that the value of the stamp shall appear on every stamp, both in words and in figures, but I have been unable to adopt the suggestion that the name of the country should appear upon the stamps on account of the difficulty of knowing what the name of the country is. Clearly we cannot put upon our stamps "England," for since the annexation by Scotland that is obviously out of the question. Nor could we place "Great Britain," for Ireland then would be excluded. Nor could we put upon our stamps "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," for, in the first place, that would be an inscription so long that it would occupy a very great deal of the small space available, and in the second place it would exclude the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are part of the country for postal services, but are technically not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and whose feelings no doubt would be much hurt if they were excluded from the designation upon the postage stamps which they use. Consequently, I have adhered to the previous custom of leaving the stamps anonymous, so to speak. After all, this country was the first country in the world to have postage stamps, and perhaps it is not unduly arrogant that our stamps should remain anonymous amongst those of the other countries of the world, believing, as I think we are entitled to, that they are sufficiently identified by the effigy of the Sovereign which appears upon them and by the language of the inscription.
    I propose, on the occasion of the new issue of stamps and letter-cards to improve the perforation both on the stamps and the letter-cards, in respect to which there has been in the past some complaint. When the pressure of work owing to the production of the new issue is over,

    2173
    I propose also to place upon sale postage stamps in the form of rolls, instead of only in the form of sheets, for the convenience of persons who use automatic machines in their offices and elsewhere, and also, I believe, very likely in private houses in many cases the rolls might be found more convenient for use. A few months ago I announced in the House of Commons that if there was any demand for the facility from Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Trade, I should be glad to make arrangements for the supplying for each of certificates of the posting of letters. There are many persons who do not wish to go to the expense of registering a letter at a cost of 2d., which insures special care in its handling and compensation in case of loss, but who desire to be able to have in their possession some proof that they had posted a letter to a particular person which might be produced in the event of a dispute. In several trades that facility is much desired. I have received many representations from Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Trade to the effect that this facility would be found of great use, and I propose, therefore, in the near future to place upon sale in post offices these certificates of posting, which anyone can obtain on handing the letter to the clerk and placing an adhesive ½d. stamp on a form which will be supplied to him. It should be understood, however, that this is not an alternative to registration, and that any one who desires special care to be taken of his letter or compensation in the event of its loss will still need to have that letter registered at the existing fee of 2d.
    There is another change which I propose to effect very shortly. The rates charged in the foreign parcel post have been in my opinion somewhat too high. Our foreign parcel post is now an agency of very great importance. We export every year through the parcel post over £5,000,000 worth of goods, and the amount exported has very rapidly increased. In the last seven years it has increased by 60 per cent., while at the same time Tariff Reformers will rejoice to hear that there has been an exceedingly small increase in imports by parcel post. This great increase has been effected in spite of the somewhat high rates which are charged, many of which are rather higher than those charged by our great trade competitor, Germany. We are all anxious, so far as it is possible within the province of each of us, to do what we can to assist our merchants in the expansion of national trade, and I feel sure a reduction in the
    2174
    foreign parcel post rate would be generally welcomed. I should explain that, unlike the postage on a letter, which is a fixed sum carrying a letter any distance for 1d. or 2½d. as the case may be, the whole of which is received by the country in which the letter is posted, the parcel post rate is a composite rate made up of separate sums, each sum being in respect of the service rendered by the country which handles the parcel in the Course of its passage. For instance, if a parcel were going from here to Italy overland there would be a charge for the cost of handling in England, a charge for the sea postage, and a charge in respect of the conveyance through the countries through which it passes on its way. Each administration is entitled to its share of the postage rate charged on each parcel. Consequently the rates which are under my control here are merely the rates charged for the handling of parcels in this country, both parcels despatched from here and received here. The present English portion of the foreign parcel post rate is 5d. for a parcel up to 3 lbs., 10d. up to 7 lbs., and 1s. 3d. up to 11 lbs. There are variations in particular cases, but as a rule these are the charges. I propose a reduction of about 20 per cent. in these rates, which will enable a very appreciable reduction to be made all round in the great majority of our foreign parcel post rates. It will involve a present loss to the Revenue of about £19,000 a year, but I feel confident that that sum will very soon be recouped by the growth of business which may be expected to ensue.
    I received some time ago a deputation of Members from Ireland, representing both parties in this House—Nationalists and Unionists—urging the acceleration of the mails between London and Queenstown in order to promote, so far as possible, the use of that route for mails to America. It is a remarkable thing that, so rapid and so uniform is now the speed of the great vessels which carry the mails across the Atlantic, we have to make our arrangements no longer on a basis of days, but on a basis of hours, and it is a matter of real importance that the mails should be a couple of hours earlier in Queenstown than they have been previously. I have been able to effect that acceleration. The mails now arrive at Queenstown two hours earlier on Sunday morning than before, with the result that the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania" are usually able to deliver their mails in New York on Thursday evening in time to catch the night-

    2175
    mails from New York, and the acceleration, which we have effected at this end of two hours has enabled an acceleration of very often twelve hours in the delivery of the mails on the American side. I have no control over the ports of call of the ships which come from the United States to this country, but I did make representations to the Cunard Company, and they were good enough to arrange that all the packet-boats coming from New York to this country should, with the exception of the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania," resume the call at Queenstown, which they had previously dropped, and the effect of that has been that the mails for Ireland have been very considerably accelerated in respect of these vessels, except the two ships I have mentioned. The only other point, I think, which it is necessary to mention in respect to postal facilities is that a few days ago, on 1st May, I had the pleasure of receiving and sending messages of congratulation from and to the Postmaster-General of Australia on the coming into operation of the penny postage rate from Australia to the United Kingdom, and the Committee will be glad to know that the adoption of that rate by Australia now completes the whole system throughout the Empire of Imperial penny postage, with the exception of a very few small and unimportant island possessions in the Pacific.
    During the past year I have been giving the closest attention to the character and to the cost of our cable communications. Situated as this country is, with commercial interests in every quarter of the globe, with a greater foreign trade than any other nation, with our ships on every sea equalling in their number the ships of all the rest of the world put together, and with an Empire covering one-fifth of the whole of the land surface of the earth, the speed and accessibility of our telegraphic communications throughout the world must always be a matter of profound national importance. And whoever holds the office of Postmaster-General must necessarily give to these considerations a foremost place in his thoughts. The question of the rates charged for cablegrams is so important that both my predecessor, now President of the Board of Trade, and myself have felt that they could not be left permanently to the uncontrolled discretion of the Cable Companies. At the same time he felt, and I feel, that the legitimate interests of the companies and of their shareholders
    2176
    Should be safeguarded, seeing that these companies have provided a large amount of capital, often at great risk, and have built up what is a highly efficient service, of which England is the centre, and which is of great National and Imperial value. In view of these considerations, I have adopted the policy that control over rates should be secured by means of the licences which are required by the cable companies for landing their cables on our shores. These licences are granted for limited periods. They come up for renewal from time to time, and I have adopted the policy that from this time forth these licences shall contain a Clause to the effect that if, in the opinion of His. Majesty's Government, the rates are excessive, objection may he made to them, and that, if the company disagree and regards its rates as reasonable in view of the interests of the shareholders and of the circumstances of the case, any difference between the company and the Government should be referred to the arbitration of an impartial tribunal to be specified in the licence. I think the Committee will probably realise that this is a very important departure from the existing arrangements, and one which may be of great value in future. I anticipate, however, that as a matter of fact, as far as we can at present foresee, these new powers will be rarely used. I have found very great willingness on the part of the cable companies to adopt suggestions made to them by the Post Office, and I think they deserve great credit for the response they have made. Particularly in one direction they have consented to effect a large reduction in the rates harged—for plain language deferred telegrams, that is to say, telegrams which are not in code, or of an urgent character, and which may be deferred in transmission for a period of not more than twenty-four hours. Code telegrams already may often be sent at no very excessive rates, for a good many words may be expressed in a short phrase. Codes may be of various kinds. I remember hearing of an Archbishop who was travelling abroad and, wishing to communicate with a friend, sent him a cablegram containing only five words: "John, Epistle 13–14." His friend to whom the cable was addressed looked up the text to which reference was made and found these words: —
    "I had many, things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee:
    "But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name."

    2177
    I think the Committee will agree that this ecclesiastical code, which condensed so much for the payment of five words in a cablegram, is a most remarkable instance of ingenuity in this regard. But the commercial codes are capable of still greater compression than the ecclesiastical code. I have seen a cablegram containing only two words, the translation of the two words being: —
    "Have bought ex-dividend Hull Corporation Stock (First Issue) £1,000 nominal amount at par. Have cancelled purchase of Glasgow irredeemable stock."
    By the manufacture of artificial words, each two letters of which have a special significance, it is possible to arrive at a result so remarkable as that.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Codes cost the companies a great deal.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are many people who are not able to use codes, and they are to be enabled to get a considerable reduction on the rates charged for cable communications. Friends travelling abroad are put to very great expense, if they are at a distance, in sending messages of any length. These cablegrams are frequently not of a character so urgent that any serious inconvenience would be caused if they were placed behind messages of an urgent character. I have been negotiating with all the cable companies of importance having communications with England—both Atlantic and Eastern companies—and they have agreed to reduce by 50 per cent. the charges for cablegrams in plain language which will be liable to a delay, not exceeding twenty-four hours. This reform would have been carried out before now were it not that certain difficulties were raised by the French Government, which under the Telegraph Convention is interested in the matter, but negotiations are proceeding with that Government, and a conference is to be held in Paris in a few days, when I hope a satisfactory settlement will be arrived at, so as to secure what will be a very great advantage to the public at large. Arrangements are also being made for an accelerated telegraphic service between here and the Continent by the greater use of quadruplex and other appliances. New cables will be laid where required.
    The past year has seen a continuous and rapid expansion in the use of wireless telegraphy. The Committee is aware that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sydney Buxton),
    2178
    when Postmaster-General, purchased the stations round our coasts belonging to the Marconi company and to Lloyd's, and they are now being worked by the Post Office. That purchase is proved to have been a wise and far-seeing one. The traffic is great and it is increasing. During the year the number of British ships fitted with wireless apparatus has more than doubled. A year ago there were 130, and the number is now 290. Many of the smaller passenger ships and cargo boats are now being fitted with wireless apparatus. During the last few months the number of telegrams sent and received show an increase of 60 per cent. compared with the corresponding figures a year ago. I said a year ago that there would be removal of certain stations to more convenient points, and that improvements would be effected in other directions. These alterations are now being carried out, and I propose to set up a new station at or near Newcastle-on-Tyne to deal with the traffic of the North Sea, and another at Valentia to deal with the increasing traffic off the South-West of Ireland. It is rather a remarkable coincidence that wireless telegraphy has been brought prominently before the notice of the great mass of the population by its use in the sensational murder case in which Dr. Crippen figured. It is a coincidence, because in the early days of telegraphy by wires precisely the same thing occurred. Little interest was taken in electric telegraphy when it was first established. It was regarded as little more than a scientific toy until a murder was committed at slough, and the murderer, who was identified, escaped by train. An experimental telegraph line had been set up along the Great Western Railway, and a telegram was despatched to London, with the result that the murderer was arrested as he left the railway carriage at Paddington. From that time forth the public took a real interest in electric telegraphy, and what had previously been regarded as little more than a scientific toy rapidly attained the position of an instrument of general utility. I thought the Committee might be interested in that as showing a remarkably close parallel to that incident which occurred in the course of last year in regard to wireless telegraphy.
    In regard to telephones, I do not propose to enter into the general question of telephone policy or the steps taken in anticipation of the transfer of the company's business to the Post Office. Nor shall I enter into the

    2179
    alternative arrangements proposed by certain chambers of commerce and others. Nor do I propose to deal with the question of the conditions of the transfer of the staff to the State service. Within a few weeks—I hope shortly after Whitsuntide—I shall have to introduce the Telephone Transfer Bill dealing with these questions, and I think the Committee will consider it more convenient that they should receive the full and separate attention which the importance of these great problems requires on the occasion specially allotted to that purpose, rather than that I should deal with them to-day, together with a large number of Post Office questions which properly come before the cognisance of the Committee. I would mention in regard to the telephones that there has been during the year a satisfactory increase. In the Post Office telephone system, during the twelve months there has been an increase in the number of telephones of no less than 13 per cent., and the number of trunk Gals has also increased 13 per cent., while the revenue from the trunk wires has increased 15 per cent., showing that people are using the trunk wires more and more for conversations. There has been a large and continuous capital expenditure on telephones throughout the country. Another interesting feature of the year so far as the telephone is concerned has been the laying of a submarine cable between England and France of a new type. It is furnished with what the engineers call inductance coils, the effect of which is greatly to increase the power of transmission of a cable. I have spoken on the old and new cables between this House and Paris and the difference is remarkable. The effect of the alterations will be to extend considerably the range of telephonic communications between England and the different parts of the Continent. I mention this because I think the engineers of the Post Office are entitled to much credit for having devised and elaborated what is a new departure in the science of submarine telephony. I am awaiting the construction of land lines on the Continent to communicate with this cable, and also the laying of a French cable which the French Government have undertaken to lay. When these additional facilities are available and ready to cope with the increased work which may be anticipated, I shall be able to reduce by 50 per cent. the charges for telephonic
    2180
    communication between this country and France, which, I am sure, will be very satisfactory to the commercial community.
    I have endeavoured to develop in this country what has already been developed in America, namely, a system of farmers' telephones—cheap lines in the agricultural districts. In the United States there are as many farmers' telephones as all our telephones in this country put together. There are several instruments to one line, and they are supplied at a very cheap rate. I am now offering to the agricultural districts the unlimited use of a telephone for £3 per annum to any farmer who is willing to join with his neighbours. There must be no fewer than five on a line subscribing to the telephone system on these terms. If this system is used, it will lessen the isolation of country life, and it will also facilitate the transaction of business by farmers, and what is not less important, it will greatly ease the operations of agricultural societies and organisations. The system of co-operative societies and other organisations can only be worked to the best advantage by taking full advantage of the telephone. By its means farmers are put into communication with the central creamery or depot. The system has been tried in England at Brandsby, in Yorkshire, where a number of farmers have got the telephone at these rates and conditions. It has been a complete success in every way. I have had drafted a leaflet describing the advantages of the scheme, not in stereotyped official terms, but in the more attractive language in commercial use. I have enlisted the support of the agricultural organisation societies of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and with their co-operation I trust to be able to develop the system to a very large extent. I hope that all those who are interested in the development of agricultural industry, and especially in the development of agricultural co-operation, in this House and outside it, will cooperate with the Post Office in inducing farmers throughout the country to obtain the advantage of this very cheap rate of telephonic communication.
    The coming year will see the jubilee of the Post Office Savings Bank. Its 50th anniversary will fall in September. It has been, as we all know, an institution of immeasurable value, which now has charge of no less a sum than £165,000,000 of the savings of the people. I hope it will be possible to signalise the jubilee year in one very satisfactory manner, and that we shall be able to witness the final disappear-

    2181
    ance of the annual deficits on the Savings Bank Account, which have been decreasing year by year and have now been reduced to very small proportions. By certain changes in the accounting and management which I have in view I hope that the deficit will be wiped out altogether within the next twelve months. On the day in September on which the jubilee falls I hope also to be able to introduce the home safes which I described to the Committee twelve months ago. The money-boxes, which will be in the possession of the depositors, while the post office keeps the key, can be opened only on presentation at a post office, so that the depositor, under a temptation to spend, will be obliged to wait until he visits a post office before he is able to expend the money which he has succeeded in accumulating. These safes will be supplied for a registration fee of Is. each and a deposit of 2s., but the deposit will be returnable when the safe is returned to the post office. The manufacture of them is now proceeding. A hundred thousand of them have been ordered, and I anticipate that they will be as successful as a means of feeding the Post Office Savings Bank as they have been found to be in regard to private savings banks and in other countries.
    During recent months much has been written in the Press with respect to the desirability of popularising Consols, and giving facilities to the people to obtain Government securities with ease and in small amounts. The question of the issue of small bonds to bearer and similar matters lie in the Department of the Treasury and are not in my province. But I would like to remind the Committee that the Post Office does now give these facilites which are asked for to a very large extent. Anyone at the present time can buy any form of Government Stock he wishes in any amount from is up to £200 in the year, by the simple process of going to a post office and paying his money into a Savings Bank account. The opening of a Savings Bank account costs nothing. The commission that is charged on the purchase of the Government Stock is only 9d. for any sum up to £25. Then it rises by steps up to a sum of 2s. 3d. for the investment of £100, and then by stages of 6d. per £100. The Committee will recognise that these rates of commission are exceedingly low. Anyone who wishes to buy £100 worth of Consols can do so by going into a post office and paying 2s. 3d. commission. He gets the Consols at, the price of a succeeding day. He is able to invest as much as
    2182
    £200 in one year, or £500 in all, through the agency of the Savings Bank, and interest is paid to him through his Savings Bank account. When he reaches the limit of £500 the investment can be transferred to his own name, and he can begin, if he so wishes, to invest further amounts through the agency of the Post Office. One hundred and sixty-four thousand people now avail themselves of these facilities, and hold, through the Savings Bank account, Government Stock to the value of £23,000,000. Twenty-five per cent. of these holdings are under £25 each. Nearly another 25 per cent. are between £25 and £50 each. I think it is very advisable that it should be made as widely known as possible that these cheap facilities do exist for the investment of very small sums in our Government securities.
    What I have been saying to the Committee will lead them to see that this Department is by no means swathed in routine or lacking in enterprise, that there is no dead hand of official apathy to be witnessed in the Post Office, and that there is an active life pulsing through all the vast ramifications of our system. The Post Office may take pride, and does take pride, in continually increasing its utility to the nation which it serves. I now turn to another group of questions which interest many Members of this House, those questions relating to the internal organisation of the Department itself, and the conditions of employment of the staff. The Hobhouse Committee recommended that there should be a certain amount of decentralisation of the Post Office system. They came to the conclusion that the work was too much concentrated at head-quarters. The Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend and predecessor, and presided over by Sir Henry Babington Smith, a previous Secretary to the Post Office, after prolonged inquiry, presented a report on this subject. It made clear to us that there was in the Post Office a certain amount of delay through matters being dealt with at head-quarters which could properly be dealt with locally, and that there was not only delay but that sometimes work was done twice over both in the localities and at head-quarters, which might properly be left to the local offices. For reasons into which I do not enter I did not see my way to adopt the recommendations of the Committee with regard to a complete re-division of the country into different areas suggested by the Committee, but I have adopted to the full their proposals with

    2183
    regard to the devolution of powers, and recently powers which used to be exerised by the head-quarter staff have been transferred to the surveyors in different districts and to the Secretaries in Scotland and Ireland, and powers which used to be exercised by the surveyors have been transferred to the larger postmasters, so that local officers are now allowed greater discretion than hitherto; and I believe the result will be more economy and more despatch in the transaction of Post Office business without any loss of efficiency.
    With regard to the conditions of employment of the staff I have been able to carry out from time to time a number of minor improvements designed to promote the comfort and better treatment of the vast body of men and women of whom the Postmaster-General is the employer. And I have received a great number of deputations and memorials, as any one in the office of Postmaster-General does. I need hardly assure the Committee that it is a matter of profound satisfaction to a Postmaster-General if he is able while doing justice to the public interests to carry out any measure which will produce better treatment of those whom he employs. I have, however, during the past year been pressed from certain quarters to reconsider the main scales of remuneration laid down by the Committee of this House, and brought into operation at the beginning of 1908. The Members of this Committee who are acquainted with the history of this question will be aware that for very many years the associations of Post Office servants advocated and pressed for a Committee of the House of Commons to adjudicate upon their grievances, and after many refusals that Committee was at last established in the year 1906, and it sat during that year and the year 1907. It made a most prolonged and laborious inquiry, and made a vast number of exceedingly detailed recommendations. Those recommendations have been carried into effect by my predecessor at a cost to the Exchequer amounting to about £680,000 a year. I am now asked by representatives of the Staff to reopen this question, and to review not merely questions of interpretation of various paragraphs which may be thought to be ambiguous in this Report, but to open the main scales of remuneration laid down by a Committee of this House, viewed either as a whole or in respect of particular classes. I have not
    2184
    thought it consistent with my duty to accede to that request
    It has been suggested to me, for instance, that the telegraphists in the six largest towns have a legitimate grievance because the Hobhouse Committee gave them no advance on their previously existing maximum of 56s. per week, and they urged that I should depart from the specific recommendation in that regard, and press the Treasury for an increase of remuneration. I may point out to the Committee with respect to the established servants of the Post Office that the money wage is not the remuneration. The remuneration is considerably more than the money wage, and that 56s. paid to the Post Office telegraphists does not correspond to the 56s. paid to a workman, say, in ordinary employment. The Post Office Servant has his pension rights. He has not got to provide for his own old age as the man in other employment has, and the actuarial value of these rights is frequently as much as 10 per cent. of the wage. He has also full pay in times of sickness, and he has annual leave also on full pay. The actuarial value of these supplementary advantages, putting aside postmen who have uniform and boot allowance, is sometimes as much as 20 per cent., and can rarely be taken as less than 15 per cent. of the wage. And the telegraphist who is receiving a money wage of 56s. a week would be in effect receiving a total remuneration of about 65s. a week. The Members of the House, therefore, who take an interest in the rates of pay of the Post Office servants should always bear in mind that the wage-scale is not the total remuneration of these officers.
    If I reopened the question of these telegraphists in these six towns, I should at once be pressed to reopen the question of the London sorters, who number many thousands, who also were not given any advantage by the Hobhouse Committee's recommendations, and of all the other towns which are on a carefully graduated scale; and any interference with one part of that scale almost certainly would have an effect upon the others in this question of remuneration. Therefore, it is impossible to pick out one class and to treat it in an isolated manner. It will be necessary if there is a revision to have a general revision. That would mean that a Committee should be again called upon to go into the question of remuneration and conditions of service of the Post Office staff who now number 217,000 persons, and who

    2185
    before the end of this financial year, with the addition of the National Telephone Company's employés, will number 236,000 people. I fully agree that the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee cannot stand for all time, and must necessarily after an interval be subject to review. But I would point out to the Committee that they have been in force for a period now of little more than three years, and it is not only my own opinion, but the opinion of the Government as a whole that it is considerably too soon to ask the House again to undertake so difficult and laborious an inquiry. There are two specific questions I should like to refer to, before I terminate my remarks; they relate to employés, and they have been receiving special attention during the last twelve months. One is as to the telephone operators, with respect to whose health some sensational statements have been made in the newspapers, and some of which have been too lightly accepted in various quarters. One speaker at a conference of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, held at Nottingham, declared that in one exchange which was mentioned, out of thirty-six girl operators, on a particular day, no fewer than 30 were carried out either fainting or suffering from hysteria, owing to the extreme pressure of the work. So far as I have been able to investigate the matter on the information supplied to me—and I have asked for further information, which has not yet reached me—in that exchange on no date was more than one operator so affected, and the daily average rate was one-tenth of one per cent. It will be seen that very reprehensible remarks are made, which are quite unsubstantiated by the facts, with regard to matters such as these. However, there is no doubt that the work of the telephone operators does on occasion impose a certain strain upon the nervous organisation, and it is very necessary that whatever steps are possible should be taken in order that the operators generally may do their work with the minimum of detriment. I have carefully considered the report of the medical officers appointed by my predecessor to hold an inquiry into this matter, and I propose as speedily as may be to carry out certain improvements in the conditions of the employment of telephone operators.
    Some of them are employed on a system of what is called long and short duty. They work on a basis of an eight-hours day, but
    2186
    instead of working eight hours on each day, they work ten hours on one day and six hours on the next, in order that the organisation of the particular exchange may be facilitated to suit the work that is to be done. The period of ten hours, however, is in my opinion too long for an operator to be exposed to the continuous strain of telephone work. As quickly as the conditions will allow, this system of long and short duty for telephonists will be abolished. There are in contemplation other provisions as to hours of attendance which will further improve the conditions of employment. Improvements will be made in the headgear which is used so as to make it more easy for girls to wear; and we are experimenting with different types of chairs which will be more suited for their work. Rest rooms are being provided wherever possible, so that supervisors will not be subjected to long periods of continuous standing. Further, it is proposed in future to have more careful discrimination among candidates for entrance into the telephone service, in order to ensure that those who are accepted shall not be persons who are liable to nervous instability. The other class of employés to whom special and continuous attention has been given is the class of boy messengers, of whom I spoke at some length to the Committee a year ago. During the last twelve months much has been done to carry out the policy which I then foreshadowed. I have presented to the House the Report of a Standing Committee—presided over by the Secretary to the Post Office (Sir Matthew Nathan)—which has been dealing with this subject with the purpose of devising means by which the Post Office may be freed from the reproach of taking into its employment great numbers of boys to whom it can offer no permanent employment, and who at the age of sixteen years or thereabouts are thrown on to the labour market without any training for any skilled employment.
    In these days we have come to recognise that the main hope for the future lies in the children, and public opinion has come to realise more and more that our efforts for the education of the boys and girls should continue during the years of adolescence, which are as important, and even more important, than the years up to the age of fourteen. Efforts are being made both in Parliament and out of it to secure that boys and girls when they leave school shall be directed into employments which will offer to them as secure a liveli-

    2187
    hood for the future as the industrial conditions of our country allow. It is a clear inconsistency, while the public and Parliament are making those efforts, and while public attention is directed to that end, that the Post Office, which is by far the largest employer of labour, should itself give the most conspicuous instance of blind alley employment. My efforts have been directed to terminating that condition of things. The Post Office is employing 15,800 boys, of whom 4,000 are dismissed every year, in addition to those sent away for misconduct or for special reasons, such as want of habits of regularity or of discipline. These boys have not been trained for skilled employment. We already absorb about 1,600 boys a year for continued service in the Post Office, while dismissing about 4,000. We also take into the Post Office service about 1,300 old soldiers and sailors. I am not disposed to terminate that arrangement with the War Office and Admiralty. After all the prospects of a man who leaves the Army for civil life are even worse, in the view of securing proper employment, than those of the boys in the Post Office service. Our practice is that men who in their youth entered the Post Office, and afterwards have enlisted in the Army, should, when they leave the Army and wish to return to the Post Office, have the preference in the choice of old soldiers. That system will still be continued. We shall be enabled in the future to increase the number of 1,600 previously arranged for, by absorbing annually in the Post Office service a larger number of boy messengers. I have arranged that an additional number shall obtain employment at the War Office as engineers, or in other skilled employment of that character, but the main hope of being able to absorb these youths lies in keeping the boys for a longer period. If you keep them to the age of eighteen or nineteen instead of the age of sixteen, you will require a smaller number of boys.
    If you have a smaller number of boys you will have fewer dismissals. Our efforts are being devoted to that particular arrangement to enable the period of employment of each boy to be lengthened. This cannot be brought into operation all at once. If you keep boys up to the age of nineteen—I mean the whole of the boy staff—you will be simultaneously taking on a great number of young boys at one time. The system has
    2188
    to be worked out gradually; it will take a period of two years to come into full operation. In the twelve months from next July, I hope to reduce the number of dismissals at sixteen years from 4,000 to 1,700, which is in itself a very large reduction, and in the period of another twelve months I hope it may be reduced again. It is not possible to give precise figures, but, at any rate, to very small proportions; indeed, we shall then be within sight of a solution of this very difficult and complex question. There is one other point with regard to the boy messengers. In future the recruitment of boy messengers will be a matter of greater importance if they are given, in the majority of cases, lifelong employment. Therefore it is very necessary to get the right class of boy, and to make sure there is no favouritism in the selection of boys who are to be continued in the service. So far as it is possible to do it, I should like to have the assistance of the Juvenile Advisory Committees now being set up in a great number of towns by the Education authorities in co-operation with the Labour Exchanges. Where those Advisory Committees do not exist we will use the Committees appointed by the Education authorities alone to give advice to parents in the training and employment of their children. A second point is this, that many of the telegraph messengers now voluntarily attend classes in the evenings for the improvement of their education after working hours. In future it will be a matter of even greater importance than hitherto to maintain a high educational standard. The Consultative Committee of the Board of Education, in their well-known Report, recommended compulsory continuation classes and the Scottish Education Commission made a similar recommendation, which has lately been authorised by Parliament in the Scottish Education Act.
    I propose—it does not require legislation—to use the administrative powers with which I am vested to make it a condition of employment for the future entrance into the Post Office service that the boys shall attend continuation classes, and for the first two years of their service —it is a modest proposal—they shall devote four hours a week, from September up to April, to these continuation classes, and that then they shall be subjected to an examination to see what profit they have made by their studies, and in order to show their ability for continued service in the Post Office. After

    2189
    the second year they would be subjected to further educational requirements, but the details of the system are not yet worked out. We are making arrangements, further, at some of the offices where the pressure of work is not continuous, that books shall be available for the boys to read during their spare time. All these new schemes for the benefit of the boy messengers require so much supervision that I thought it necessary to appoint an officer of my Department to give all his time to the supervision of such arrangements, so that they may be properly and effectively carried out throughout the country as a whole.
    The Post Office will be called upon during the coming year and succeeding years to take a great part in the scheme of National Insurance which has lately been laid before Parliament and the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been a great satisfaction to the staff of the Post Office as a whole, to its officers from the highest to the lowest, that they have been privileged to take a share in the old age pensions scheme which is now in such successful operation through the agency of this Department. I am quite certain that I am expressing the opinion of the whole Post Office staff when I say that they will be not only ready but proud, to take their share in the organisation and working of this great scheme of social amelioration which is, we all recognise, a momentous part of the world-wide movement of social reform which is the distinguishing and ennobling feature of our time.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move to reduce item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) by £100. After the important and interesting speech of the Postmaster-General, it seems most ungenerous to move the reduction of his salary. I therefore move this Amendment as a mere matter of form in order that we may obtain a discussion of certain questions which have arisen in connection with the administration of the Post Office during the last year. Before in any way quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to express great satisfaction with the various reforms which he 'mentioned, and which I am sure will be received with appreciation by the commercial community, especially in regard to the certificate of postage, which is a very great improvement. This certificate of the Postmaster-General will be of great service to those of us who desire
    2190
    evidence that letters have been posted. There is then the reduction of the price of the postage of foreign parcels. I do not intend to be led into a discussion on Tariff Reform, although the Postmaster-General rather invited one. Any reduction in the cost of parcels post, whereby we can export articles to foreign countries will be very much welcomed by our trading communities. Before I enter on a subject, of complaint, I must refer to the latter part of his speech as to reduction in the number of boys who will be dismissed, and the ultimate extinction of that number which I think follows, according to the Postmaster-General, in two or three years. It has been the crying evil, and one which has been the despair of philanthropists for many years past, what to do with this large number of boys dismissed from the Post Office at the age of sixteen without any trade or business, and without having served any apprenticeship. I certainly, for my own part, do appreciate most heartily the effort the Postmaster-General has made and is making in order to reduce that number dismissed from the Post Office. I look forward to the time, as the Postmaster-General appears to look forward too, when the entry of a boy into the ser vice of the Postmaster-General will be take provision for a permanent career, so that he may go on step by step until he becomes a full-blown member of the Post Office staff.
    I desire to ask one or two questions on points mentioned by the Postmaster-General. There is, understand, to he a very small charge for farmers' telephones, namely, £3 per year. But the right hon. Gentleman did not mention if there is to be a charge for installation in country districts those of us who desire to use telephones very frequently have to pay a considerable stun, if we are some distance from the Exchange, for the installation of the telephone. We should like to know if those farmers' telephones will be installed free of charge. I do not propose to discuss the Telephone Transfer Act at the present time, but I am quite sure that the Postmaster-General will remember the pledges made by his predecessor two years ago with regard to doing his very utmost to take over all the employés employed by the National Telephone Service in order that none of them may be thrown out of employment, because there is nowhere else except the Post Office where those men could possibly obtain employment. I should like to know

    2191
    whether there is likely to be any improvement in telephony from the point of view of the automatic telephone. It is now being used in the United States, and I should like to know, amongst all the improvements that the Post Office is now making if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way, at all events for experimental purposes, to introduce automatic telephones.
    In the midst of those wonders which the Postmaster-General has been putting forward, in a speech against which I am bound to say very little adverse criticism can possibly be directed, I regret I am compelled to put forward a point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the earlier part of his remarks, and that is in reference to the sale of post-cards and letter-cards at ½d. and 1d. respectively without charging for the paper or the card. I regret it all the more so because I know from the cheers with which his remarks were met that I am putting forward, from many points of view, an unpopular proposal. I agree that it has been detrimental to those of us who wanted to buy halfpenny post-cards to have to go into a post office and pay three farthings. I should not in the least object, and I do not think anybody in the stationery trade would in the least object to the reform of the Postmaster-General if it were confined to the needs of the poor man who wanted to buy one, two, or three post-cards from time to time. I quite agree, when post-cards can be produced fifty-eight for ld., that it is not right to charge a man a farthing for a post-card, but it is quite a different thing to have the Post Office again entering into competition with an established trade, and giving away wholesale post-cards and letter-cards without charging anything for them. I am not in the least degree interested in the stationery trade, and I have been merely asked to put the views of the stationery trade before the Committee. There are some 20,000 retail stationers in this country who have been in the habit of supplying millions of people with post-cards and letter-cards. This is a departure from the practice of the Post Office. The Post Office has hitherto, with the exception of the year 1872, when postcards were first introduced, confined itself to the transmission of mails and the transmission of parcels, and has not provided free the post-cards or letter-cards in which those mails are to be sent.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Foreign post-cards.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree that recently foreign post-cards have been provided free in order to make our arrangements run on parallel lines with foreign countries. I am bound to say I do not think that the provision of foreign postcards is really an argument in favour of allowing the wholesale provision of free post-cards and letter-cards, not merely to the poor man who wants to send one or two or three, but also to the large wholesale firms. My point is that we are going, at the expense of the taxpayer or really the poor man, if you like, to provide large firms such as banks, insurance offices and all kinds of advertising firms with free stationery, free post-cards and free letter-cards. That is quite the contrary of the old Liberal doctrine of some thirty years ago, when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister. In 1872 it was decided that a charge should be made for the paper and the post-cards. That charge was made because they felt that it was not right to give to the people, and it was a Liberal Government then considered the question, something for nothing. The duty of the Post Office is to carry the card when it is there for or the letter-card at ld., and deliver it to its destination. The Secretary to the Treasury in 1872 desired that the people in the stationery trade should take this question in hand, and in Hansard of 1872 the statement is given: —
    "this will give opportunity to the stationers to devise a variety of cards differing both in quality and design for general use, and all classes will participate more or less in the accommodative."
    In 1881 the point again came up when Mr. Fawcett, I think, was Postmaster-General. He directed a letter to be written declining to accede to the proposal, made by the Postmaster-General to-day, on the ground that as a matter of justice and policy a small charge must be made for the card itself. That was the action of a Liberal Postmaster-General. I am going to submit to the Committee it is not merely a matter of policy, but a matter of justice that you should charge people, I do not say a farthing, for that is obviously too much, but something for the card and the letter-card.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: How much less would you charge?
    Mr. JOYNSON HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that as to the poor man who goes in and gets one or two or three cards I said I would not haggle,

    2193
    even about a question of principle. Let him have his card for the stamp value. My point is as to large firms who may want ten or twenty or one hundred thousand cards, and who are now going to have them for the stamp value, whereas hitherto they had been in the habit of going to their stationer or printer and ordering them to be printed. Banks, insurance companies, railway companies, and all big employers of labour use very large numbers of post-cards, which they buy to-day from the stationers, and for which they pay the value. My objection to this proposal is that they will be able to go, at the expense of the general public, and buy those cards in any number they like and have them printed, merely paying the face cost of them. There has been a very large increase in the number of post-cards sent through the post during the last few years. I venture to suggest that these free post-cards of the right hon. Gentleman would enormously increase the number of cards, and more especially the number of what one may call official postcards. In 1894, which I believe was a crucial date, for, as the Postmaster-General said, that was the date when adhesive stamps were first allowed to be put on post-cards for the convenience of the general public. The stationery trade were more or less told at the time that they could build up a trade. They have built up a trade to the advantage of the Postal Revenue. In 1894 there were 197,000,000 official post-cards supplied by the post office and passing through the post office, and only 37,000,000 private post-cards. Last year there were 753,000,000 private post-cards passing through the post office, and the number of official post-cards had diminished to 85,000,000. That shows that the stationery trade had not been backwards. They did meet the enormous public demand, and increased the number of private post-cards from 37,000,000 to 835,000,000.
    I venture to submit to the Postmaster-General that it is inevitable, if you arc going to give the public post-cards for nothing, that that vast trade which has sprung up of 838,000,000 post-cards made and sold by the stationer; must enormously diminish. Your commercial firm is not likely to order its hundred thousand post-cards from the stationer when they can be get from the post office for nothing. I venture to suggest further, that there is nothing in the statement of the Postmaster-General that he was not going to include envelopes and newspaper-
    2194
    wrappers. But why not? If I can go to a post office and buy a packet of 100 or 1,000 packets of post-cards or even more at their face value, the analogy is complete. If I can buy 100,000 letter-cards, why not stamped envelopes for nothing? The postage is exactly the same for a letter-card as it is for the envelope, being 1d. in each case, and I am to have a letter-card given to me for nothing, and I have to pay for the envelope. The same applies to the newspaper-wrapper, which, I should imagine, costs less than either the postcard or the letter-card. The Postmaster-General assures us that we are still going to be asked to pay for the newspaper-wrapper, and I quite agree that we should. But I feel certain that pressure will quickly be put on the right hon. Gentleman, and that in another year or so we shall have people probably rising and saying, "You have given us free postcards and letter-cards, and surely you are not going to make us pay 1d. for twenty-five stamped envelopes. Surely you are not going to make us pay anything for the newspaper wrapper?" It will be the rich consumer who is really getting the benefit, and not the poor man. The argument of the Postmaster-General in his speech and in his letter six months ago when he foreshadowed this reform was on behalf of the poor man, whom it was-unfair and undesirable to charge for postcards. But the same argument applies to the poor man who wants to send a newspaper, and I feel sure that, in the course of a year or two, having once given way on the matter of the post-card and the letter-card, the Post Office will have to give free the newspaper-wrapper and, sooner or later, the envelope. If the Postmaster-General will accept the suggestion which I have made to limit the free cards to small numbers, and not allow them to be bought in wholesale fashion, it would be much better.
    It is true that the concession applies only to thin post-cards. But what rational difference is there between providing thin post-cards for nothing and providing cards a little thicker? The thin post-cards are the best adapted for using in typewriters, and when you can get them for nothing they will be the cards which the ordinary business firm will use for advertising purposes. The whole country will be flooded with thin post-cards, and, as a taxpayer, I object to advertising firms, instead of having printed stationery for which they have to pay, having their announcements

    2195
    printed on Government cards which they get for nothing. Although the cost—fifty-eight for 1d.—seems very small, I believe the Post Office will experience an appreciable loss. Thirty years ago the Postmaster-General estimated that there would be a saving to the Government of about £15,000 through charging for post-cards. Owing to the enormous increase in the number of post-cards used, I believe that, if my expectation is anything like fulfilled, the cost of this concession by the Government will work out at £30,000 or £40,000 a year. I see no reason why the Post Office should pay that sum, not for the benefit of the poor man, but in order to put it in the hands of well-to-do advertisers, while at the same time inflicting a serious hardship Upon stationers, wholesale and retail, who, in accordance with the suggestion of the Postmaster-General in 1894, have built up their business and increased it by 300 per cent. I suggest that the Postmaster-General should reconsider his proposal somewhat on the lines I have suggested. I beg to move.
    Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
    Mr. WILES: Members in all parts of the House will join in congratulating the Postmaster-General on the splendid result of the year's working of his great undertaking. Everybody will be glad also to hear of the improvements which he has announced. I do not think that many Members will agree with the complaint of the hon. Member opposite in regard to the reduction in the price of post-cards. It seems to me that it is a reduction in the cost of carrying the post-cards. It is impossible to sell a post-card for less than a halfpenny, and so the Postmaster-General is giving the card in as a reduction in the postage. I do not think that people in the stationery trade will lose much in the sale of post-cards. They will retain the trade for luxurious post-cards and picture postcards, which I believe represent the bulk of the trade done by small stationers. The large stationers will not be affected to any extent, because they can tender for the supply of post-cards for the Government. On the whole, I do not think that any loss will accrue to the stationery trade; but I believe that more post-cards will be used, and that the concession will be a great boon to the business community and to poor people as well.
    2196
    I am glad also that the Postmaster-General is selling stamps in rolls and reducing the price of foreign parcels. Those of us who send many foreign cables appreciate the action he has taken in reference to the cable companies. For some years there has been no competition between the various companies. They seem to have come to a common agreement about the charges to be made and the facilities to be given for cablegrams. I am glad the Postmaster-General has found a way of putting a little pressure upon them, in order to get a reduction in the charges which, generally speaking, have not been revised for some time. A remark was made in reference to the code books being very expensive. I have always found that it is the sender of the cablegram who has to pay for the code book; therefore I think the cable companies will not suffer in any way, but the sender of the cablegram will get a great advantage. I must also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on giving us facilities for buying stamps in books to the face value of 2s. I raised the question on the Estimates last year, and am rather disappointed that it has taken the Postmaster-General twelve months to give the public this boon. It having been ascertained that advertisements could easily be obtained to cover the cost of the hooks, we ought surely to have had them in use before now. I had hoped to have been able to suggest that, a trial having been made of the stamp books, the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared to issue other books, at 1s., 2s. 6d., 5s., 10s., and 20s., because I believe he will find that selling stamps in this way is a very economical method of dealing with them. Not only will it be economical to the Post Office, as they will he able to take stock easily, and to count their stamps much more readily, but it will be very popular with the public when they get into the way of buying stamps in this manner. I hope that before the Estimates come up next year the Postmaster-General will have found that the 2s. books have succeeded, and that he is able to extend the system.
    The certificates for letters posted will be a great advantage to people generally. There is, however, one point in reference to the old plan of marking registered letters by a blue line. In the City people, such as housekeepers and others, have been in the habit of putting registered letters in some particular place where they were under special care until

    2197
    wanted, and they were easily able to pick them out because of the blue line. Now, however, registered letters are often mixed up with other correspondence, and it is much more difficult, not only for the housekeepers and others, but for the Post Office, to deal with them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what advantage he derives from substituting the small stamp in the corner for the blue line across the envelope as an indication that a letter is registered. In regard to the transfer of the National Telephone Company's undertaking, the Postmaster-General has told us that a Bill will be introduced, and upon that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter. There is a certain amount of nervousness, not only on the part of the users of the telephone, some of whom fear that the charges may be put up, but also on the part of the 12,000 members of the staff, who are to be taken over. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to tell us clearly that none of these men will suffer when they come into he service of the State it would have given a great amount of satisfaction. I wish to say a few words about some of the Efferent classes of men whose work goes so largely to make up the success of this great undertaking. A demand has arisen for the earlier retirement of men in the postal service. This demand was put before the Tweedmouth Committee, but it made no recommendation; at all events, no change was made. It would be an advantage to the postal department, as well is to the staff, if the Postmaster-General would give careful consideration to the proposal that postal servants should be allowed to retire earlier if they desire to do so. I do not mean that they should all be forced to retire earlier. Optional retirement after thirty years' service would, I believe, conduce to better work and to greater efficiency.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would require legislation.
    Mr. WILES: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider the matter?
    The CHAIRMAN: If it requires legislation, it cannot be discussed on the Estimates.
    Mr. WILES: I hoped it was one of those matters which the right hon. Gentleman could deal with in the administration of his office. As it requires legislation, I must
    2198
    leave the matter. I should like to bring forward a question which has been discussed before, and that is the question of split duties which are worked by the postmen, especially in the London offices. Since the Hobhouse Report, when it was recommended, I think, by the Committee that split duties should be reduced as much as possible—I can refer the right hon. Gentleman to the passage in the Committee's Report if he likes — nothing practical, I believe, has been done to carry out the recommended reduction in the London districts. For instance, in the South-Western District nothing at all has been done, I believe, to reduce the split duty. In that office, I understand, the periods covered by some of the men are as long as fourteen hours. This means three attendances. It cannot be good for the men, or for the post office work, when they have to make three attendances during the day, lasting as long as fourteen hours. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman had a deputation, or there was a deputation to his predecessor, on this question. He suggested that the men themselves could possibly bring up a scheme for reducing the split duties. I believe a scheme was submitted. It was returned with the assurance that a new scheme for reducing the split duties was in preparation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the scheme will soon be prepared and brought into force.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What district?
    Mr. WILES: The South-Western District. I would like also to say one or two words about promotion. The Hobhouse Committee suggested that more opportnities should occur for promotion generally. At the present time at the chief office four men are working as substitutes, and have been doing so for five years, at assistant head postmen's duties. After all that time there seems no prospect for them to get appointments as head postmen. If these positions as head postmen could come more often there would be more opportunities for promotion. I hope the Postmaster-General will try to encourage the men who do this humdrum work in every way, because I believe the more he encourages them to work towards promotion the better work will he get from the staff. One other matter. I am afraid the Postmaster - General will think it rather a hardy annual. He has

    2199
    told us that he cannot have another inquiry at the present time. At the same time I cannot believe that he is unwilling to consider any unfair differences which have been suggested in the terms of the Hobhouse Report. Telegraphists have a grievance, and that is that certain of their number in one part of London, doing the same class of work, are paid on a different scale from other telegraphists. It has often been mentioned in this House that the men at the Lombard Street post office are paid lower wages than those who send the Stock Exchange telegrams. I do feel that this is such an absurd difference that if the right hon. Gentleman will remedy it it will give great satisfaction to the staff over which he presides.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Do you mean reduce the Stock Exchange clerks to the level of the others?
    Mr. WILES: No, no. I argue that the men who send telegrams for the Lombard Street bankers are quite of as great importance as the men who send telegrams for my friends of the Stock Exchange. In fact, I might argue that the bankers' telegrams are far more important than those sent from the Stock Exchange. Therefore I would suggest that the Lombard Street telegraph clerks should have their wages raised to the Stock Exchange standard. There is one other small class to which I would refer, and that is the Tube attendants, who number about 120 men—the men who manage the pneumatic tubes in the Post Office. They are the only men in uniform who have not any advantages of stripes and stripe pay. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should bring this class of men into line with those other classes who have the advantages of stripes and stripe allowances, so that all these small bodies may be treated on the uniform scale. Some of these matters may appear very small in a great organisation like the Post Office, but this is the only time when Members who are interested in the Post Office and the Post Office Service have an opportunity of speaking about them. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will be able to make a promise that he will remedy some of these matters.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I only desire the indulgence of the Committee for a very few moments to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to two matters affecting the districts which I represent in this
    2200
    House. The first of these cases is a matter which I regret I did not mention to the right hon. Gentleman when he was good enough to ask what the subjects were in relation to which I had put down a Motion to reduce his salary. The facts are extremely short. They relate to the circumstances under which a boy named Edward Davies, a telegraph messenger, of Liverpool, was recently dismissed. I can tell the facts, I think, so that they will be very readily appreciated by the Committee and by the right hon. Gentleman. The lad was dismissed last Christmas for an alleged breach of the rules. The rule the lad was alleged to have broken is a rule—and a very salutary rule—which forbids employés in the Post Office to solicit gratuities, Christmas boxes, and the like. The lad was employed at the Corn Exchange (new block) of the Central Office. The practice has existed there for twelve years, I am told, of "pooling" all the Christmas boxes which are given by the firms around the Corn Exchange.
    There are a very large number of important business firms who carry on their business in the immediate neighbourhood, and a resolution of the firms, I am told, was that these Christmas boxes should be "pooled" and distributed amongst the Corn Exchange boys who worked in that office. This boy neither solicited, nor received, a single penny from any one of these firms. It is true that at the time the charge was made against him a collecting book was in his possession, but I am informed that he afterwards contended that he had not received a single penny. His own statement is that he had not solicited a single penny. I am informed that there is no evidence existing, or procurable, that he had solicited a penny from anyone. His record was an excellent one. His superior officer stated that he had never had a better boy under his orders. I may also say, in passing, that the boy had studied very hard, and very successfully, to pass the fourth examination for boy-messengers. This charge was brought against him. He was given no opportunity of any kind of making a statement. He has not up to the present been afforded such an opportunity, although his father has asked, and representations have been made to the proper quarter. He has been summarily dismissed.
    I need only add this point: that he is now disqualified by reason of his dismissal from competing for any similar appointment. As showing the view which

    2201
    has been taken of this treatment by his fellow clerks, I can tell the Committee that they took the matter in hand, and after a thorough investigation unanimously, I think, recommended that representations of these facts should be made to the Postmaster-General, and some attempt made to obtain justice for the boy. I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman will refuse my very reasonable request that some opportunity should be given to this boy to make an explanation—at least he ought to be allowed a hearing. If the facts are as represented to me, I can only suggest to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman that the treatment that the boy has received is very harsh and unwarranted.
    The second matter is one that has certainly aroused very considerable attention in Liverpool, and I am given to understand in a number of other large centres in the country where the conditions and grievances are identical. This concerns the rate of pay of the telegraphists in Liverpool—for I will confine myself to Liverpool. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his interesting speech, said that it was too soon to review the recommendations of the Hobhouse Report, and he gave some figures indicative of the increase of the rate of pay over the whole of the country which was recommended by the Hobhouse Committee. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is a little irrelevant to the grievances which have been pressed upon his attention by the Liverpool telegraphists. Before I state the grievance may I be allowed to say, as I have said before in this House, that I do not like, any more probably than the Postmaster-General, the system under which Members of this House are driven, in order to obtain the discussion of grievances that are entertained by sections of Government employés among their constituents, to raise the matter here. I agree with what was said here a year ago, that it is an undesirable method, and a method that in many cases leads to unreasonable and undesirable pressure on the Member. But until another system is adopted, such as the Committee which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire advocated a year ago—his proposals were, think, very favourably commented upon by the Prime Minister—until, I say, some such Committee is set up no other method is open to us of raising questions which are felt as grievances by our constituents.
    2202
    Having stated this point, I have satisfied myself that there is some basis for the grievances. What is the position? So far as the Liverpool telegraphists are concerned no addition has been granted to the maximum pay since 1890. In 1890 Mr. Henry Cecil Raikes granted an increase. A very great deal has happened since then very materially modifying the position so far as the Liverpool telegraphists are concerned. In the first place increases in salary have been granted to the staff in London and most of the provincial centres. The observations which the right hon. Gentleman made in reference to the recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee entirely ignored the point made by the Liverpool telegraphists. They did not desire in any way to alter the general nature of the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee. What they say is this, that the Hobhouse Committee made certain recommendations for increases in salaries that applied to the London area and a number of other areas as well. An increase was given in the London area, but no similar increase was made in Liverpool, although all the circumstances exist in Liverpool which were made the pretexts for an increase in London. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the Hobhouse Committee recommended an increase of pay for male telegraphists in London on the ground that the cost of living in London had gone up. I think the right hon. Gentleman gave me an answer to that effect.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They decided that the conditions of employment were exceptional in London.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: If it was decided that the conditions of employment were exceptional, was not the increased cost of living taken into account?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There was no increase for the London sorters; there was an increase granted to the telegraphists of 3s. on account of the special conditions of work in the central telegraph office, but there was no increase to London sorters on the same scale, nor to provincial sorters and telegraphists who are on a somewhat lower scale.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: What I am trying to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that the position of the telegraphist in London—I agree the sorters are excluded —is exactly corresponding with the position of the telegraphists in Liverpool, on

    2203
    whose behalf I speak. I am informed that the position of the telegraphists in Liverpool and Manchester who discharge the same functions as those discharged by the telegraphists of London, are almost identical. I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in the course of these Debates, that the consideration of the cost of living had been one of the considerations that weighed with the Hobhouse Committee or himself. If he states my recollection misled me, I accept his word, but I desire to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the last twenty years rent and rates and cost of living have increased enormously, and there has been a general increase in the rate of pay for Government employés. I press upon the Government the case of the Liverpool telegraphists on its merits, and I say that there is an analogy between it and the case of the London telegraphists who received the increase recommended by the Hobhouse Committee. I venture to invite the Government to relieve the anxieties of those who are concerned about this question, and to show how he distinguishes between the case of those telegraphists in London, to whom an increase was granted, and the telegraphists in Liverpool and Manchester, who have had no increase. If the right hon. Gentleman will do so, he will render a useful service to those of us who have to hear complaints. I should be glad if lie would point out in what respect the general character of the duties of the Liverpool telegraphists differ from those of London, and if he would explain why differentiation has been more than once advocated on the question of the cost of living, and if he would, having regard to the increased cost of living, grant the increase which I am now pressing on him.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I listened with very great interest to the statement made by the Postmaster-General and to one of his remarks with regard to the great facilities he is now offering to the public in regard to stamps. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said with reference to the discharge of boys for trivial offences, one or two cases have been brought to my notice where boys have lost their positions for very trivial offences indeed. One of these was a case in Yorkshire, where a boy was discharged for having kicked a stone twice in the street. It. may seem a small matter to dis-
    2204
    charge a boy, but it should be remembered that it affected his after-life. Some employers will not take a boy after he has been discharged from the Post Office, and I think the Postmaster-General ought to issue general instructions that boys should not be dismissed for trivial offences and thereby handicapped in their endeavour to secure future employment.
    I am somewhat concerned about the question brought before the Postmaster-General in reference to an appointment of a committee of inquiry. As I understand him he is not prepared to appoint another committee to go into the grievances of the postal servants. The Hobhouse Report contains a statement that the finding of that Committee should stand for a considerable period, and that a considerable time should elapse before another Committee should be appointed. I should liked to have heard the Postmaster-General say what is meant by a considerable period. The postal servants would not be sending complaints to Members of Parliament, if they knew their cases were to be reviewed on a given date. The next Committee whenever it is appointed need not be so elaborate as the last one.
    I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that seeing that there is a great difference of opinion as to how certain recommendations of the Hobhouse Report should be interpreted, the questions in dispute ought to be referred to an outside authority. The right hon. Gentleman might avail himself of the services of the Advisory Board in connection with the Fair Wages Resolution, or of the Trades Boards, or he might appoint a small Committee of this House to whom the grievances of the postal servants might be referred. The Hobhouse Committee sat not exactly with judicial functions, but as a jury investigating certain complaints. The postal servants were the complainants and the Department was the defendant. What is the position now? The Committee came to a certain decision and made certain recommendations upon certain questions. The Department, which was in the position of a defendant at the inquiry, are now interpreting the recommendations of the Committee as they think best. I say that is most unfair to the other side which has as much right to claim to interpret the decision of the Committee as the Department have. I say, therefore, there ought to be a Court of Appeal to decide the nature of the recommendations made by the Committee. There is one particular recommendation which has not

    2205
    been acted upon, and that is the fixing of wages or salaries upon the cost of living and units of work. Personally I think the wages ought to be fixed upon the cost of living and that there should be no reference whatever to units of work unless in some places where men are working at extremely high pressure. The Postmaster-General knows there are many anomalies in connection with fixing wages on units of work and cost of living.
    Another complaint of the employeés is that the Hobhouse Committee decided certain points without having sufficient evidence. The Board of Trade had not completed its inquiry on the cost of living, and the Committee were not in a position to give quite a just decision on one of those points that arises in connection with the fixing of wages. I hope the Postmaster-General will in future at least consider the cost of living as a more important question than the units of work. We are told the Hobhouse Committee did not injure anybody. I am informed on credible authority that there was something like 3,000 sub-postmasters injuriously affected. They have to do a considerable amount of extra work before they become entitled to any increased remuneration. Another question arises. I am given to understand that the present Postmaster-General promised one of the Post Office Associations that the question of wages would be discussed with a deputation and that later on he refused to meet them and discuss the question. They have a grievance in that direction and therefore it is another reason why in my opinion the service of some outside authority should be brought in to decide who is the right and who is the wrong in connection with two or three important matters. I am inclined to think that some of the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee have been interpreted most ungenerously so far as the employés are concerned.
    7.0 P.M.
    I remember some time ago, shortly after the right hon. Gentleman took up his present position, reading an announcement that the Postmaster-General intended giving thirteen stamps for one shilling, and that a considerable number of people went to the Post Office and bought a shillings worth and got eleven penny stamps and two halfpenny stamps. I am inclined to think that the postal servants have been treated something like that under the Hobhouse Committee Report, and although
    2206
    there has been a change in the system they are getting just about the same value as they received before. I hope the Postmaster-General will consider carefully the suggestions I have made. I think he should let the Committee know what he considers is a reasonable period before another committee of inquiry should be appointed, and lie ought to say whether he is prepared to refer those outstanding grievances to some authority outside the Department altogether. We know that when a judge or a jury have given a decision they generally stick by it, and are not likely to reverse their own verdict. That being so, in the best interests of the Department, the public, and the Postmaster-General, I think it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman referred those questions either to a small Committee of this House or to the Advisory Board. That course would give great satisfaction to every Department of the Service. If any such concessions are made I am sure they will be repaid by better service rendered to the State.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I am glad the hon. Member who has just sat down has called attention to the grievances of sub-postmasters. Those who render service in the post office may be divided into two classes, those who give the whole of their time and those who combine the postal business with other occupations. It is to the latter class, who are principally shopkeepers in villages and small towns, that a grievance arises under the new scale established by the Hobhouse Committee. May I remind the Committee what that new scale means? Under the old scale of payment a sub-postmaster might be a village grocer, or might be following some other such occupation, and he would be remunerated under a minimum scale. Under the new system an attempt was made to make the payment according to the amount of work done. Consequently, the ordinary work in country post offices and in small town post offices was divided into units, four units being allowed for a telegram, one unit for a postal-order, and so forth, the object being to make the payment consistent with the amount of work which passed through the office. In small offices, in order that they might not be prejudiced unreasonably for having only a. small amount of business, the scale was proportionately greater. The pay for 10,000 units was £2 per thousand, therefore the small offices would receive for 10,000 waits of work of that character £20,

    2207
    per annum. When you come to larger offices in the country you have a reduction to £1 per 1,000 units, so that upon the scale of 280,000 units for the year the office would receive about £280, that is, one-half the amount which a smaller office would receive. In the larger offices the ordinary commercial business is confined to postal business, and there you have a reduction in the scale of business from £1 to 12s. 6d. per thousand, that is to say, in offices which have 780,000 units of work the scale is reduced to 12s. 6d.
    The point I wish to put for the consideration of the hon. Gentleman who will reply is that, whilst the attempt to make the payment of those offices which combine the postal business with grocery and other trades proportionate to the work by a fair extra allowance to the small offices is perfectly good, it nevertheless works a very serious hardship upon some of the offices which are not of the smallest character. I suggest that the scale per thousand units should not be put so low as 12s. 6d., but that the minimum scale should be at the rate of £l. If that is not possible, having regard to the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, at least the option should be given to the sub-postmasters to choose whether they will continue upon the old scale or upon the new scale. I mean that they should have the option of selecting the scale they should go upon, that in the first instance they should have the option of electing upon which scale they will stand. Just to show where the hardship comes in, I will point out that under the old scale an allowance was made in proportion to the number of letters sorted and handled, with an additional payment in regard to the number of bags dealt with. Under the Hobhouse scale the payment is made according to the number of sacks of letters dealt with without regard to the number of letters contained in each sack. I think I am correct in saying that under the new scale no cognisance is taken of the number of letters in the sacks and payment to the sub-postmasters depends entirely upon the number of sacks.
    It is quite obvious that in a small country office you may have as few as twenty letters in a sack, whilst in some of the offices in the larger villages and small country towns you might have as many as 2,000 and in extreme cases even 3,000 letters in one sack. Where the grievance
    2208
    comes is that there is no extra remuneration of any kind in the case of the larger offices dealing with these sacks containing 2,000 letters as compared with the small village offices where the sacks contain as few as twenty letters. That is a real grievance which I think should be set right, and this could be easily done in the manner I have indicated without doing any injustice to the small offices. The Post Office should do what is fair and right in proportion to the number of letters dealt with. The whole of this grievance, I am advised, might be remedied if the sub-postmasters had the opportunity of electing whether they should continue on the new or old scale of remuneration. I do not suggest that the postmaster should be allowed to say at every triennial revision, "I shall go on the new scale now, and three years hence I wish to go back to the old scale." I do think, however, that the option should be with the postmaster rather than with the Department. I think the system adopted is quite contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Hob-house recommendations. At the first triennial revision the sub-postmaster should have the opportunity of electing whether he will go on the old or the new scale; at the next triennial revision the Department should continue his option. If this very reasonable concession is granted, I am sure it will remove a grievance from the country districts, where I know the sub-postmasters carry on their business in a way which is satisfactory to the public. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter his careful consideration, and if in the interests of the public service he can see his way to carry out the suggestion I have made I believe he will have the general support of the Committee on both sides of the House.
    Sir JAMES YOXALL: I think the Committee will have heard with great pleasure the steps which have been taken to deal with what I may call the blind alley employment, of the Post Office which has been an evil in the past. I am also pleased to hear from the Postmaster-General that he proposes to use his position as an employer of labour to set an example to employers of juvenile labour in regard to employment during the winter months. For this and many other signs of intelligent activity and advance I am sure the Committee will be thankful. I should like to refer for a moment to the Postmaster-General's promised effort in the direction of devolu-

    2209
    tion and decentralisation. In regard to my own Constituency in Nottingham, I hope that this decentralisation may remove an act of centralisation from which the City of Nottingham has suffered considerably in the past. Nottingham was turned from the rank of being a centre to a kind of sub-centre or semi-centre. I acknowledge quite freely the Postmaster-General has carried that out most loyally. Nottingham is a very big place, and the Mayor and Corporation feel themselves aggrieved by what has taken place. I venture strongly to recommend him, now he is upon the line and tack of decentralisation and devolulion, to again consider whether he cannot restore Nottingham to its former position as a centre of postal engineering.
    Some remarks have been made with regard to the transfer of the National Telephone Company's service to the State, and we have been promised a full statement upon that subject when the Bill is introduced. In the meantime, I should like to make one remark. The Assistant Postmaster-General has been down to Nottingham, and I am told his proceedings there are regarded with some suspicion. They fear his visit and his general attitude on the matter may mean a transference from Nottingham also of the great and important manufacture of telephone machines carried out in that city. Again, a change of that kind should not take place for a most serious reason. Nottingham is an important place, largely populated, producing very good work, and there can be no reason at all why any transference of that kind should take place to some other district. I pass from purely local considerations to what may be regarded by the Postmaster - General as a smaller matter still. It has reference to that class of postal servants of whom mention was made by the last speaker. Sub-postmasters are an exceedingly useful class of postal servants, and to my mind they do not receive full justice from the great institution which they serve. It cannot be said of them that in pension, uniform, and leave on full pay they receive any benefits whatever. They confer great benefits upon the public, they provide a cheap and easy way of opening a sub-post office, and they enable the Postmaster-General to provide a better post office supply in the suburbs of our great cities and in smaller towns and villages than he would otherwise be able to do.
    There is a sub-postmaster named F. R. Webb, with an office situated at Hyson
    2210
    Green, Nottingham. When he had provided the house in which the sub-post office is carried on, when he had provided the necessary amount of help required by the local supervisor, and when he had provided accommodation for telegraph boys, the rate of remuneration according to which sub-postmasters are paid left him with a net reward of 15s. 9d. per week. Yet £20,000 worth—not 20,000 units—of postal business was transacted in that post office in the year. A public servant who carries out public business represented by £20,000, and who is only remunerated to the extent of 15s. 9d. per week cannot be considered well paid, and I beg to recommend my right hon. Friend to look into the case. Mr. Webb was so convinced he was ill-treated that he resigned his office, but he considers he has two claims against the Postmaster-General. He says there is a sum of about £20 due to him for pension work and a further sum of £3 due to him for providing accommodation for telegraph boys. Sub-postmasters in general have reason to be dissatisfied with the way in which they are treated by the Post Office. They are a body not very well organised, and they cannot present so strong and united a front as some other postal servants do. I am aware my right hon. Friend has every desire to do what is just and fair; in fact, I have had recent experience of that. I made an appeal to him on behalf of a small class, and he met me in a very kindly spirit. I do not therefore in the least complain, but I give him this case in particular, and ask him to inquire into it and to see whether there should not be some reconsideration of the remuneration of sub-postmasters and of the reward they receive for serving the State.
    Mr. GARDNER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the position those who have hitherto given facilities to the National Telephone Company to put poles on their land will be in when the Government take over the service. I am informed private owners will be in the same position as they have been hitherto in everything except where posts are put up alongside the high road, but I should like to know if several others have rights over a road which actually runs through private property—whether that will be considered a case in which the owner has the same right as he has now in dealing with the National Telephone Company.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Everybody who looks at the Post Office Estimates must be at once struck by the enormous cost of administration of the Post Office Savings Bank, and, to a certain extent, it is obvious it must be so. You have small sums taken in and taken out continually by small people. Books have to be kept, and kept accurately, and you have to pay for the keeping of them. Some years ago an ingenious Amercian inventor put on the market a small thing known as the home safe. I have one of them here. It is a very ingenious little toy, and not an infernal machine. Here you have a slit for putting in the money, and here an orifice or hole for small American notes. Of course, in this country you would not want to provide for notes. The idea is this. Take the case of a slate club, with thirty or forty members. Each member has one of these small safes, numbered, but he has not a key, the master key being kept by the secretary or treasurer. The man or lady holding the safe puts in a contribution week by week, or day by day, and at the end of three or six months lie or she takes the safe to the secretary or treasurer, who unlocks it, places the amount to the credit of the individual, and then returns the safe. It is perfectly obvious an invention of this sort would save a lot of bookkeeping in the Post Office Savings Bank. Somewhere about this time last year they put out tenders, as an experiment, for about 5,000 or 10,000 of these small boxes.
    Mr. SAMUEL: No; they were asked to tender for any amount up to 100,000, with different prices if they liked for different numbers.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but at any rate the result was that twenty-five firms tendered, and the two best tenders in the opinion of the Postmaster-General, who, I think, saw the safes himself, were those of the Bankers' Service Corporation, who were, I understand, an offshoot of a concern known as the Corbin Cabinet Co., which itself was an offshoot of a corporation in America, and of another firm calling itself C. O. Burns Co., itself an offspring of the Corbin Cabinet Co. The tender of C. O. Burns Co. was accepted at 2s. At some later date a Post Office official, I understand, saw Mr. Burns, or a friend of his, and asked him at what price they would supply 100,000 of these safes.
    Mr. SAMUEL: No; it was in the original letter.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Of course, I bow to what the right hon. Gentleman says, but at any rate the C. O. Burns Co. knocked down their original tender to 1s. 10½d., and also arranged to have this particular safe manufactured in England, and not in America. So far so good. But meanwhile our friend Mr. Burns had got into trouble in New York. He had been in trouble some time apparently, and on 16th February he had to file his petition in bankruptcy in New York. I need not trouble the Committee with details. He failed for a substantial sum in New York on the 16th February. But he was a prudent man in his way, and, on the very same day in which he went bankrupt in New York he formed a limited liability company in England. It was a very limited liability company. It consisted of only himself and his clerk. So far as I can understand they never held a meeting, and never even applied for capital. But a request was made that the contract for these safes be transferred from the C. O. Burns Company in New York to the Fiscus Company in England. He got that, and then the order was sub-let to Kynochs, Limited, who undertook to supply the safes at 1s. 7d. That gave Fiscus and his clerk a nice little profit of £1,450 odd, and I hope that that money went into the pockets of some of his creditors in America. Hearing what had happened the Corbin Cabinet Company asked to be allowed to tender at 1s. 8d., but they were told that they could not do so. That is my short story. My suggestion is that fresh tenders ought to have been called for. It was avoided by a mere subterfuge. Why waste the ratepayers' money in this manner? Why allow Kynoch's, Limited, or anybody else to get this great sum? I can only suggest there should have been fresh tenders. I ask the Postmaster-General for an explanation on this point.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I May be allowed to answer at once. This is an allegation of unfair treatment on the part of the Post Office in regard to the acceptance of a tender in which considerable sums of public money are involved. I may say at once that the hon. Member is misinformed in several particulars. I should like to give the facts precisely as they occurred. The home safes were introduced to the Post Office, and forms of tender were advertised in the usual way. Any

    2213
    British firm which wished to tender could have done so. Indeed, several British firms did tender. There was no secrecy at all about the matter. A large number of safes were tendered for. Prices were asked for at the rate of 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, and 100,000. There was the question, of course, of having a standing order. We wanted, of course, the best possible safes. We had to consider the cost. One of the safes offered to us was that manufactured by C. O. Burns, of New York. Another was offered by the Bankers' Service Corporation. These matters are usually confidential, but, as the hon. Member has referred to the price quoted by C. O. Burns, I hope he will not mind my quoting the price given by others. C. O. Burns tendered at 2s. 2d. for the first 5,000, and 1s. 11d. for 100,000. The Bankers' Service Corporation quoted at 2s. 6d., and made no reduction for a higher number. I went closely into the matter, and we were all of the opinion that the safe offered by the C. O. Burns Company was the better safe.
    There was this further point to be considered that by taking a large quantity we got the safe at 1s. 11d. instead of the 2s. 6d. demanded by the Bankers' Service Corporation. As a matter of fact, if I had accepted the offer of the latter company in our opinion we should have had a slightly inferior safe, and it would have been at least 25 per cent. dearer than the other safe. Of course my duty was to accept the offer for the best safe at the lowest price. I was anxious that these safes should be manufactured in England, and the C. O. Burns Company volunteered to have them made in this country. Under these circumstances we accepted their tender, and we had no reason to think but that they would be in a position to carry out their contract. It is the fact that subsequently C. O. Burns, in America, went into liquidation, but that was after the Post Office had already undertaken to accept an assignment of the contract to an English Company. It should be borne in mind that the contract included a clause which made it possible for the Postmaster-General, if he so desired, to terminate the contract. We had no reason to think that the English Company to which the contract was assigned would not be able to carry out the contract. The Company offered a guarantee, which was accepted, as proof that they were in a position to carry out the contract. We therefore had
    2214
    no reason to terminate the contract, and, indeed, we should have been acting wrongly if we had said to Mr. Burns: "We are going to take the contract away from you, and we are going to give it to an American Company, which is to charge us 25 per cent. more for the safes."
    Mr. CROFT: The point my hon. Friend sought to make was that after the contract was accepted the contractor handed it over to another company, whereas fresh tenders ought to have been invited in this country.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I can only say we were anxious that the safes should be made in England. There has been no preference of any kind for C. O. Burns. They agreed to supply us with the safes within the period we desired them, and I saw no reason to take any further action.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I desire to raise a point connected with employés in the Post Office. I want to deal with the question of another inquiry into the conditions of service in the Post Office. The statement made by the Postmaster-General seems to me to have closed the door on this point of a further inquiry. It was, we are told, understood that the Hobhouse Report was to stand for a considerable period. But I think there is sonic justification for asking for some idea when the whole question may be reopened. We do not want hon. Members to be perpetually bombarding the Postmaster-General with questions on postal grievances, and it would be well to have some indication of some reasonable period of time being allowed to elapse before the case could be reopened. After all, there cannot be any doubt about this, that the Hobhouse Committee and the whole of the members of it must have been quite new to the business, and that they would have very little experience, if any, of Post Office work. Therefore, there can be no doubt that they were to a large extent in the hands of the officials of the Post Office. After all, it is the man who knows, who directs the course of a ship, and in the course of the inquiries of the Committee, there can be no doubt that the advice and assistance of the paid officials who figured before this Committee went a very long way towards determining its findings. I want to deal with this matter from another point of view, for I have had a good deal of experience in

    2215
    connection with the grievances of men connected with the, trade union movement, although I do not pretend to speak for a union covering so large a number of men as are in the Post Office employ.
    The Postmaster-General has told us that his Department, roughly speaking, covers 217,000 men and women, and the point I want to make is this, that there is no employer in the country who is not every day and every week and every year meeting representatives of the men, settling grievances and making advances of wages and giving other benefits, and it seems to be assumed by Ministers in this House, who represent Departments, that they are labouring under some hardship because some Members of the House of Commons have been voicing some grievance with regard to somebody in their employ. I am inclined to think that Ministers at the head of large Departments get off very easily indeed as compared with any large employer. They are not troubled with any disputes in the sense that other employers are, and they have not got to call in a conciliation board to settle them, and in that way I think the different Government Departments get off quite easily as compared with the ordinary employer of labour. Therefore I want to suggest that after a period of time has elapsed, and the period of four or five years has passed by since the Report of the Hobhouse Committee, the men have some right in reason to ask that there should be another inquiry to enable them to put forward their particular grievances and have them attended to and settled in as satisfactory a way as can be expected in human nature. Another point which I wish to refer to has reference to the interpretation of the Committee's recommendations about which there has been some difference. I think it will be obvious to every Member in this House —even to the Postmaster-General, who has a very fair grip of these matters—that there are always two sides to a question, and I think he will admit, too, that there might be two interpretations of a Committee's Report.
    It is sufficient for me to know that there are two interpretations, and I think the men are perfectly justified in making a complaint—a very well-grounded complaint—of the interpretation of the officials of the Post Office Department, who, after all, are in the position of witnesses, counsel, judge, jury who give the verdict, and the gaoler who carries out the sen-
    2216
    tence. It is obvious that in this case differences of interpretation must, and will, arise, and do exist to-day, and in the interpretation of the Hobhouse Committee's Report there is no doubt in my mind that a very considerable body of dissatisfaction exists in the postal service. I am anxious that this dissatisfaction should be met in a reasonable way. So far as interpretation is concerned, I suppose the Post Office officials think they are right, and I suppose, on the other hand, that the employés think they are right also. This again is very natural conduct. In all disputes the employer thinks he is right and the men think they are right, and it is a very difficult thing for those who take part in settling these matters to form a judgment as to where right and reason come in. It is only as a rule where there is negotiation and compromise between workmen and their employer by the intervention of a third party, and where there is agreement for an arbitrator, that the difficulty is met. I, therefore, suggest that, inasmuch as this strong difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of the Report of the Hobhouse Committee does exist, that this matter should he referred to the Advisory Committee.
    The Advisory Committee, as I understand, is a Committee composed of representatives of seven Departments of the State and dealing with the Fair Wage Clause in Government contracts. Of course, you have the chief representatives of the various Departments there, so that if there is really any trouble in one Department, the other Departments have in a sense the solution of the difficulty in their hands, and they are able to bring to their service the Board of Trade, which has a very wide and very lengthy experience in all these matters, and a very wide knowledge of variation in the conditions of labour and the rates and wages of labour up and down the country. I think that is a very reasonable and a very fair suggestion. I have never heard any objection to it, and, personally, I see no other way out of the difficulty, unless the Department is going to continue to ride roughshod over the views and opinions held by numbers of people who are employed by them. The other point I want to put is with regard to the bases on which the whole thing rests. I do not desire at all, and I think it is probably a little bit out of order for Members of this Committee to expect or to ask that the findings of the Hobhouse Committee should be upset. I do not think

    2217
    the Postmaster-General has power to do that, and therefore it seems to be a waste of time for hon. Members to bring complaints forward as to the working of the Hobhouse Report, feeling, as I do, that the Postmaster-General has not the power to upset the findings of this Report, but the very complaints that they make strengthen the point that I am putting to the Committee that there should be at no distant date a further investigation into this matter, so that the complaints made by the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) and others might be inquired into and solved upon a satisfactory basis.
    With regard to the bases on which the whole situation depends, they are the cost of living and the units of work, and of them I have no knowledge. The basic principle on which you found the rates of remuneration of the men and women in the Post Office employ, I am quite prepared to admit I do not know, but what I want to consider is what weight is going to be put upon those particular points which form the bases of the conclusions which have to be arrived at. With regard to the cost of living, I think it will be obvious to the committee that that is a basis which implies naturally a bare subsistence level, and whilst it is right to take it as a point of guidance, you can only take it on this understanding that there must be some figure over and above that cost of living which must come in as an element of the finding, and be incorporated in the final decision. Then with regard to the units of work it seems to me that that suggestion has a very strong business flavour. I am rather inclined to think that the individual who made that suggestion has an exceedingly keen, pointed nose for the business end of the stick. After all, I can understand the application of that where a man is engaged under an employer and can, by his business ability, assiduity, and attention to business increase the units of work; but, as I understand, in a Post Office it is not within the scope of the ordinary man employed there to increase the units of work. If a man were employed in a draper's shop, behind the counter, he might be able to bring a certain amount of custom to the establishment, and thereby increase the turnover of the business, and would be entitled to expect to receive some amount of extra remuneration for the extra service which he puts in, but I venture to say that in the Post Office system that is only possible to a very microscopical extent.
    2218
    8.0 P.M.
    There is another point which I should like to allude to, and that is with regard to the position of these telegraph mechanicians. I understand that the hours of these men have been increased from forty-eight hours to fifty and a-half hours. I understand that the hours of these men were altered under a previous Liberal Government, namely, that of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and that their hours were reduced, and I cannot understand upon what lines the hours of these men have been raised, inasmuch as they have already been settled at forty-eight by Government enactment. But I understand that they have been raised to fifty and a-half hours without any increase of wages at all, the pay being about the same as they received for the shorter hours. I certainly think these men have some grievance. The last point I wish to deal with is with regard to the casual labour in the Post Office department. From what I can understand there seems to be a tendency now, after the Hobhouse Committee's report, inasmuch as it did not lay down any line with regard to rates of wages for these men who are casually employed, to employ people who probably do not want to have continuous employment, and in this way to get hold of a number of men who will be almost the same as the men employed on the dock side in London, who are only employed either for a short period in the year or for a short period in the week.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no tendency to increase it.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I understand the complaint is that the tendency is to increase it. I am quite prepared to accept the statement of the Postmaster-General if he is prepared to assure me that there is no desire on his part to increase it, but to keep it down to the lowest conceivable limit.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: That might be acceptable to those who have stated the case to me. I am only giving the information that has been given to me, and the men imagine that there is something in this. I feel sure, however, that if the Postmaster-General will give a public assurance on that point, it might ease the minds of those men.
    Colonel CHALONER: I wish to emphasise the appeal which has been made to

    2219
    the Postmaster-General on behalf of the telegraphists. They feel that they have been rather left in the cold. Unlike their comrades in London, who, I believe, have been more generously treated, they have had no rise in their salary now for many years, whereas during that time the increase in the cost of living has been considerable. Many of them are married men, who find a very great difficulty in making both ends meet. I honestly think that the claim they have put forward is a strong one. The cost of food, groceries, clothing, rent, everything they have to spend their salary on has increased. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to the appeal which has been made to him.
    Dr. ADDISON: I wish to thank the Postmaster-General on behalf of the Post office employés for the very kindly attention which he has given to cases put before him in the past year. Whilst thanking him very warmly for what he has done in the past in connection with those who drive our Post Office mail vans, there is one point of criticism that I should like to press a little further on him. Some of these men are on duty at about a quarter to two in the morning, at various hours during the day and at nine o'clock at night, and they are paid 4d. an hour. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has increased it to 4½d. Certain others who previously worked at 4d. an hour are now paid 5d. Nevertheless, the total earnings of these men amount to not more than 21s. or 22s. a week on the average, and they have, of necessity, to be available for duty at all events for a very large number of hours each day, in the case of the odd men beginning at about two o'clock in the morning. One can well imagine what the domestic conditions of life are under these circumstances of the considerable body of men who have to be up at these hours in the morning and hang about several hours during the day on the off-chance of getting a job. This state of employment in a great Department of the State is exceedingly unsatisfactory from all points of view.
    I thank the right hon. Gentleman very warmly for having decided that in future contracts a minimum wage of 6d. shall be paid to these men. It is a very great advance, and marks a departure in a State Department of insisting on a minimum wage. But whilst that will be an im-
    2220
    mense boon to these men, at the same time the conditions under which they work are, in my opinion, unnecessarily undesirable. I know what the Postmaster-General will say quite well. He will say it is desirable that this work shall be done and that it is impracticable for the Post Office to undertake the big initial expense of setting up depots for mail vans, and so on, that it will be financially unremunerative and will not be a right thing to advise the Post Office to undertake. I have studied the conditions of the life of these men very carefully, and I certainly believe it will be quite possible to arrange a system whereby a great deal at all events of this waste of time and unnecessary loss of sleep and meal times could to a great extent be avoided. I find it difficult to convince myself that when a contractor can undertake this work and find it remunerative it is not possible for a Government Department to do the same.
    There is one small point in respect of new contracts that I hope the Postmaster-General will bear in mind. It is that these men should only be dismissible by the week. It is a very considerable hardship that many of them, for trivial matters, may be dismissed at a moment's notice. It would be better, especially in view of the Insurance Bill, that they should be employed by the week. It will tend to regularity of employment, and will be in all ways very desirable. Another point, to which, also, I am afraid one knows very well what the right hon. Gentleman's reply will be, relates to the question of the cost of living. I placed before him last year, and he gave it a very sympathetic attention, although his response was not satisfactory, the fact that a considerable number of men have been on the same wage practically since 1882. Of course during that time, as in the case of the porters, various allowances which have been made have increased the value of their weekly wages by 4s. 10d., but that is not really a sufficient consolation. The postmen, for instance, have received weekly benefits to the extent of 8s. 9d., and sorters to the extent of 17s. The maximum wage of these porters is only 30s., and during this long period many of the expenses of living have increased, and the cost of necessaries, at all events, has materially enhanced. I think the case which these men make has a great deal to commend it. I hope the Postmaster-General will agree to the constitution of some Board to which differences of interpretation of the Hobhouse Report, which

    2221
    is really the point in question with this class of workers, can be referred, and I feel sure that a fair consideration of all the facts of the case relating to these men as compared with others similarly employed will lead in the near future to some alteration in the conditions and in the maximum pay. At all events, I feel confident, knowing what the Postmaster-General has done in several other matters during the past year, that he will give this subject fair consideration.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I also desire to acknowledge in the fullest manner the way in which the Postmaster-General considers all the cases which are put before him. I desire to thank him for his consideration and his unfailing courtesy in these matters. I rise to ask him if he will give me any assurance with regard to the case which I put before him some considerable time ago with regard to the case of the Amble-side postmen. I do not intend to go into the details of the case. For one thing I do not think this is the time, and for another I have already put them before him in considerable detail, and I am perfectly certain lie has given them his consideration. I am glad to know I have the advantage of the fact that the Postmaster-General has personal acquaintance with the locality. The point of the case is that the postmen at Ambleside are in a class which is lower than the postmen at another place some five or six miles away; and whereas the other place, which is Windermere, is close to the station, Ambleside is five or six miles from the station. The result, I am informed, is that the cost of living is appreciably higher at Ambleside than at Windermere. Coals have to be carried all the way from the station, and, of course, there is a considerable charge in respect of each cart of coals, which has to be drawn all the way. The strength of the case is that it is possible to compare the two places. I am informed that the duties are very much the same in both places, and the nature of the locality is very much the same. I should be exceedingly glad if the Postmaster-General has not already come to a conclusion in the matter if he can assure me that it will receive his fullest consideration, and if he can tell me to-night that it will receive favourable consideration I shall be even more grateful.
    And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of
    2222
    Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney I am one of the Members who gave notice of their intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill in order to call the attention of the House to the difficulty which has been created by the delay on the part of the City Corporation in not completing the purchase of Spitalfields Market. This has involved considerable loss to the borough of Stepney and great inconvenience and loss to Metropolitan traffic. I am glad to say that we have been able to meet in conference representatives of the City Corporation, and that we are assured steps will be taken to prolong the right of option of purchase which the Act of 1902 gave to Stepney Borough Council. The City Corporation will be advised to see that this is clone at the expense of the Corporation, and we are also assured that the Corporation will take steps to complete the purchase without unnecessary delay. We are, therefore, very glad to withdraw our opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Dr. ADDISON: As one of those who put down Motions for blocking the Bill, wish to take this opportunity of placing on record that the authorities of the City have met our objections in a very reasonable way. Under certain Clauses of this Bill, and particularly Clause 22, relating to man carrying on trade in. the streets, such as costers, it would have been possible to have got rid of all these men, or at any rate of a large number of them, had the authorities been so minded. I do not say that they would have been so minded, but still there was the possibility under the Bill. While that possibility remained we felt it our duty to object. They have withdrawn Sub-section (8) and they have made Sub-section (6) only operative during three years. We wish to get these concessions on the records of the House. For that reason we withdraw our opposition.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

      POST OFFICE VOTE.
      Postponed proceeding on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,682,445, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1312, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
      Which Question was, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages and Allowances) be reduced by £100 in respect of the salary of the Postmaster-General."
      Question again proposed: Debate resumed.
      Mr. WATT: I wish, like previous speakers, to express my sense of the courtesy with which the Postmaster-General always receives any case which Members of the House bring before him. If there is an exception to that rule, it is in relation to the unfortunate part of the country which I have the honour to come from, namely, Scotland. I am led to think that the Post Office, along with many other Government offices, treats that country as a step-bairn, and treats it ill. The point to which I desire to direct attention is the cost of the unit of living in Scotland. By an extraordinary line of reasoning the Post Office authorities have come to the conclusion that living in Scotland is much cheaper than in England, and by a more extraordinary line of reasoning they have come to the conclusion that living in Scotland is cheaper even than in Ireland. The result of that delusion is that in using this unit of the cost of living when dealing with the wages of Post Office servants they have put them on a lower level than in the other two countries. An influential deputation of Post Office servants recently came to London and saw Sir Matthew Nathan, the permanent Secretary of the Post Office, and in the course of conversation that distinguished gentleman tried to lead the deputation to believe what they did not believe before, that the people of Scotland live principally on oatmeal porridge, and that they seldom see butcher meat.
      I am not aware whether Sir Matthew Nathan has ever visited Scotland. No doubt he has seen it on the map once or
      2224
      twice, but perhaps his knowledge of the country extends only to that. Whether that is so or not, his statement as to the cost of living in Scotland and as to the habits of the people was absolutely incorrect. He also referred to the fact that the people of Scotland of the working class live in tenement houses, and that the rents charged for these houses are cheaper than for ordinary cottages in England or Ireland. In that statement he fell into another error. It is a delusion upon which I desire to enlighten him. When the Woolwich workers were to be taken from that place to Greenock they were staggered at the rents they were called upon to pay in Greenock—so staggered indeed that some of them refused to go from Woolwich, and by so doing were thrown out of employment,. On both these points—the cost of living and the rents of houses—the Permanent Secretary of the Post Office was absolutely in error. I have here a statement of the wages paid to agricultural labourers. In Scotland the wages are for that class of workers 19s. 7d. a week, in England 18s. 4d., and in Ireland 11s. 3d. These figures indicate exactly what the cost of living is in the various countries. I therefore hope that the Postmaster-General will reconsider his position in dealing with the Scottish servants of the Post Office, and that he will not treat them as he hag treated them in the past by paying them at a lower rate than is paid to their confrères in the other two countries. I venture to think that although the Permanent Secretary took such a biassed view against our nationality that he, as an official under this Government, so widely supported from Scotland that it could not indeed exist but for Scotland, will not malign our nation and will not malign the Post Office servants by telling them that we feed on oatmeal and live in cheap tenement houses.
      Mr. FLETCHER: I wish to call attention to the arrangements for the delivery of letters in the morning in Hampstead. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the matter into consideration. In some parts of Hampstead my Constituents do not get their letters for business purposes so early as in some other districts. A large percentage of the Hampstead people have to be in the City, or may be at the Law Courts, and remain away all day, and it is an irritating thing that about five or ten minutes after they are obliged to leave their home their letters arrive. I appealed to the late Postmaster-

      2225
      General on this subject, and he told me that Hampstead, being a subordinate district, could not get any relief in this matter. I should have thought that Hampstead would not be subordinate to any other part of London, and that it was worthy of a higher designation. Down in Buckinghamshire, about twenty miles from London, I get my letters about 7 o'clock in the morning, and at a house in Surrey about the same distance away they were seldom later than 7.30. At Hampstead they arrive at about half-past eight, and sometimes as late as a quarter to nine. I really think that for a district so important as Hampstead the Postmaster-General should make arrangements that letters should be delivered about 8 o'clock in the morning. If he can carry this recommendation into effect the people of Hampstead will be very grateful.
      Colonel YATE: There are three small questions to which I wish to refer. The first is as to taking over the telephones. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not give us some little assurance with regard to the position of the employés of the present Telephone Company. The anxiety on this subject is very keen throughout the country. I know that he has told us that he is not going to enter into any details to-day, but I would like if he could tell us that no one at present in the employment of the Telephone Company will lose his employment, that persons taken over will be treated in a perfectly just and fair manner, and that none of them will be put in a worse position than they are now. A statement on this point would allay a great deal of anxiety among the existing staff. The second point is this. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that half the vacancies in the Post Office for postmen and porters are given to old soldiers and the other half to telegraph messenger boys. But I think he told us that 1,600 boys were taken on this year, and only 1,300 old soldiers. Under those circumstances, the rule has not been carried out.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That rule applies to postmen and porters, but for sorters' work and other posts of higher grades old soldiers very often are not suitable.
      Colonel YATE: But boy messengers should not be allowed to compete for examination with old soldiers who are already employed as postmen, porters, and so on. What on earth has a tele
      2226
      graph boy done for his country that he should be allowed to compete against these old soldiers for the post of sorter? These old soldiers have put in their seven years, and then this competition against them by telegraph messengers is allowed for these much sought after appointments. The too early promotion of a telegraph boy is unjust both to the boy and to the old soldier. It is unjust to the telegraph boy, because when he is promoted at the ago of eighteen he gets the appointment of a postman. I believe that under the terms of the postal service that boy gets some small annual increment for about twelve years. The result is that at the age of thirty he comes to the top of the tree and he remains a discontented man until he is sixty; whereas the old soldier who comes in after seven years' service, and knows how hard it is to get employment, would be thankful to get the position and would be content with his salary. I will beg the right hon. Gentleman to take this question into consideration. In France every old soldier is entitled to employment, and there is no doubt that we ought to have some better system here in England. Would it not be better for the Post Office openly and honestly to say to the telegraph boys, "If we keep you on after sixteen it is on the understanding that you will enlist and put in your seven years' service, and then," as the right hon. Gentleman stated, "you shall have a preference over all others for employment in the Post Office?" The third question I would ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman would not permit the pensions of the old soldiers to be paid weekly, instead of quarterly, as at present, in the same manner as the old age pensions are paid? The terrible distress we see among old soldiers in the country is very often due to this payment of the pension quarterly. The friends and acquaintances of the magi know when lie gets his pension, and they all bleed him, and the pensions go quickly. If the pensions were paid weekly the man would give the money to his wife and family, and a great deal of distress would be stopped.
      Mr. MORTON: I would like to back up the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the College division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) on behalf of Scottish Civil servants, whether in the Post Office or anywhere else. The present Government are very fond of Scottish Liberal Members, but they all seem to unite in acting unfairly to the Scottish

      2227
      people. Very large profits are made out of the Post Office, and, therefore, there cannot be any excuse made on that account for the unfair treatment meted out to Scottish officers. I hope that the statement as to the sneer of the Postmaster-General with regard to Scotsmen living on oatmeal is incorrect. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no better food than that, if he does not know it already, and that it has been found out even in England, because you will find in all the best hotels now that they give you oatmeal porridge for your breakfast. Therefore I hope that the Postmaster-General will give his attention to the point to which I have referred, without sneering at the Scottish people.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not say anything about it.
      Mr. MORTON: Very well, if the Secretary said it instead of the Postmaster-General, all I have to say is that he is responsible. I always objected to Ministers turning off their responsibility to officials. We have heard of that within the last week in other cases. All we have to do is to make the Postmaster-General responsible if he will take care to see that these officials do not say these things, that may clear his own character. Otherwise it will not be cleared. I have a few complaints to bring forward on my own account with regard to the county of Sutherland. I am sorry to have to repeat exactly what I said twelve months ago. The first matter to which I wish to call attention is the necessity of telegraphic communication between Rosehall and Elphin. The distance is about twenty miles, and it is very inconvenient for the people of Elphin if they want a doctor to be without telegraphic communication, as they have no other means of sending notice. Last year the Postmaster-General told us that he would consider the matter, as he had an open mind about it, and that he would go and see the neighbourhood. Now all I have to say with regard to that, is that he has done nothing at all. Our complaint is that while he wants a large sum of money for what he calls the loss, about £100 per annum, he refuses to take two-thirds of the guarantee as they do in practically all other cases. I pointed out to the Committee twelve months ago, and I have pointed out in a number of letters to the various Postmaster-Generals I have had to do with, and their officials, that the pre-
      2228
      sent Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House in his Budget speech that., generally speaking, the Government would take two-thirds of the guarantee as to the loss occasioned by these telegraphic lines save in exceptional cases.
      Ours is an exceptional case, no doubt, in the other direction: it is one of these places which ought to be made an exception, and where the Post Office ought to do the work altogether. The other case I wish to mention has reference to the mails between Lairg and Lochinver. The mail leaves at ten o'clock in the morning; the English mail does not get in until about one o'clock; consequently the letters, instead of being taken on at once the same day, have to wait twenty-four hours before they are forwarded. In some other cases they do not start till about two o'clock, but get in on the same evening. I think the same practice might be followed in regard to Lairg and Lochinver, at least in the summer months. I do not see any difficulty about it excepting the difficulty of moving the Postmaster-General. These are the two special cases which I desire to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. There are a great many others, but I do not desire to trouble the Committee by going through them. Our difficulty is to make the Department understand what was said by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman that we should "Colonise our own country." Those who know anything about colonising in America, Australia, or anywhere else, know that one way to colonise is to establish telegraphs, postal services, good roads, and facilities of this description; but we cannot get either a Liberal or a Tory Government to understand that: they do not mind spending millions on the blacks in Uganda or elsewhere, but they appear to object to spending money in their own country. What have been the causes of the depopulation that is going on in Scotland? One of them at any rate, is want of postal facilities, and the right hon. Gentleman is mainly responsible for the depopulation in Sutherland, because he refuses to give us those facilities. It is all very well to laugh, but it is the fact all the same.
      This matter does not affect me personally, but it is my duty on behalf of my Constituents to insist upon the Post Office doing something for them. The Postmaster-General has done nothing of importance. He continues to write letters, but he refuses to do anything else. I want to

      2229
      know why he refuses to carry out the condition laid down by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to taking two-thirds of the guarantee? Another promise, which was made on a previous occasion, was that in all parts of the country there should be at least three deliveries per week. We cannot get that. There are places in which there is only one delivery, and other places where there are two. The promise of three deliveries a week, however, was made without any exceptions or conditions. I want to know why the Postmaster-General does not carry out that promise? I do not want to make unnecessary complaints about the postal service, we are all very proud of it, but we want it to be carried out in all parts of the country. I know that the reply will be made that certain services do not pay their expenses. I have tried to make the Department understand that the cost of a service in any particular district has nothing to do with the matter at all. The idea of a universal penny post is that the good districts should pay for the bad, but if the doctrine is to be carried out, that the Post Office is only to be called upon to perform services which pay, then the Postmaster-General has no right to charge a Id. in London, Glasgow, or any of the big cities and towns, because it does not cost him one-fiftieth of a penny to deliver letters. Still, the people of our big cities are quite willing to pay their share of the general cost of the Post Office services, but I cannot get the Department to understand that. It is no answer to say that a particular service in a particular district does not pay. I have written many letters to the Postmaster-General on this subject, but I cannot hope to get much. I do not care to divide the House on this matter, but I do trust that the Postmaster-General will understand that we want to colonise our own country by means of the improved postal facilities, otherwise there must he laid at his door the depopulation of Sutherland unless he does something.
      I have only done my duty, and that without any personal feeling, in calling attention to these matters. But before I Sit down I want to ask the Postmaster-General one other question, and that is in regard to a penny post with France. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman said anything about it in his speech, as I was not here the whole time ho was Speaking, but I have noticed in 'the newspapers lately some fresh news 'with regard to a Penny post between this
      2230
      country and France. To keep up the 2½d. post between here and France is nothing less than a public scandal. You can send letters to China, India, or Australia and through the Colonies for a penny, but twenty miles across the Channel the cost of sending a letter is 2½d. In this instance, again, it is said that the reduction of the rate to a penny would mean a loss. I am not able to believe that. I do not believe there would be any loss at all upon a penny post. If you look at the Post Office accounts, revenue and expenditure, you will see that during the last fifteen years, in which period we have done something for the penny post with the Colonies, that at any rate there cannot possibly have been any loss caused to the gross revenue, which is more than ever it was before, and, after allowing for all expenses, the net revenue is increasing every year. Therefore, if you take it in one lump you cannot argue that there is a loss in respect of a particular service, because we should always take the whole service and judge by that. Taking these accounts, therefore, it is seen that there has really never been any loss arising from the partial adoption of the penny post. It has been said, I know, that if we adopted the penny post system it would be asked for by other countries. It is very probable that Belgium and Germany might ask you for it if you gave it to France. It is a curious thing that for a long time, as we are told, the French Government and people have been willing to adopt the penny post, but it is this country that is blocking the way. And so with regard to the United States of America. Our own Colonies made us carry it on. I am sure I should like to know whether something is going to he clone shortly in that direction, because I think it is due to the people of this country that as soon as possible we should adopt penny postage all over the world. The Coronation year would have been an excellent occasion to do something in that direction. I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to do something also as to the other matters I have mentioned. Last year I mentioned that the Postmaster-General had done something, but this year I cannot say so. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Assistant-Postmaster-General will use his influence with the Post Office people to get some thing done. I have no doubt it is the permanent officials who block the way. They have always blocked the way in every reform. It is curious that from the time of Rowland Hill's penny postage down to the

      2231
      present moment no good has ever come from the postal officials. They opposed penny postage, and always objected to reforms from the outside. Every reform in the postal service that we have had in this country has come from the outside. I am sorry that we have lost the former hon. Member for Canterbury Mr. Henniker Heaton who did so much for postal facilities. That man was absolutely hated at the Post Office because he was endeavouring to get them to do something. Possibly a little discussion in this House may induce these officials to endeavour to help us in the country with regard to postal services. I do not wish to make personal complaints against postal officials, because undoubtedly, especially with regard to many of the inferior officials, we have an excellent service of which the country is proud, and I am making no offiensive complaints of that sort. If I fail to get what is promised by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall have to go to him who is the master, or supposed to be, and ask him to compel his officials to do their duty and carry out the promises made. I trust that the Post Office will try and understand that if you want to stop depopulation and to improve the conditions especially of the rural classes, you must do everything you possibly can to help them both in telegraphs, telephones, and postal facilities. I am sure that in every case that they do so they will find in the long run, as in the case of the penny post, that it would financially pay them better than to go on as they do at the present moment.
      Mr. HUNT: I wish to direct attention to the mails of the Outer Hebrides. Those mails are delivered over about twenty miles of rough roads, and there are two over arms of the sea. All that is quite unnecessary, because there is a steamer that goes close by. There is another disadvantage—that in the case of parcels. They are changed three or four- times across boats, and the condition of those parcels is deplorable, which is not a matter to be surprised at. The mails are a day later, both in despatch and receipt, than if they were landed by the boat where there is a harbour and a pier and a road to the harbour, which were made by the people of the island so that boats might call there. The Postmaster-General was kind enough to write me a letter about the matter, in which he refused to do anything, because of
      2232
      the existence of no proper lights there. I believe it is the fact that the Secretary for Scotland is authorised by Parliament to expend whatever is necessary for the improvement of communications from the annual grant which he gets of £35,000 within the Congested Districts Board area. Therefore he could very well find the money to provide the harbour lights for this port in Benbecula. The mail-boats go by this port within two or three miles and. there should not be any difficulty about it. It would be an enormous advantage to the inhabitants. The present contractors, Messrs. D. MacBrayne and Co., have now had a monopoly of the trade of the Outer Hebrides for a good many years, and will not do anything unless there is competition. I would ask the Postmaster-General whether he has ever invited tenders for this part of the postal service from anybody else. If he has not how can he possibly tell that the cost would be anything more than it is at present. If you have a monopoly, and never ask anybody to compete, you cannot tell whether you could get the thing done or not as cheaply, and expense is the chief excuse of the Postmaster-General in his response. There is another matter I should like to point out. The present contractor uses for this particular service the smallest, slowest, and least seaworthy boats, which can go only about eight or ten miles an hour. The sea is often very rough, and you want good boats. Even if the contractor used only his second-class boats the mails should be delivered at Benbecula and Lochmaddy earlier than at present. But he uses these rotten old tubs, which really are not very safe. I have been in one of them myself, and they roll about terribly. These people are very badly served, although matters could be easily altered. The owner of the boat rules the roost to a very large extent. The Postmaster-General says that if the boats called at Benbecula it would make them later at other places. But they are already often hours late. It would be of great advantage to the island if the boats called at these places, because the people have to take their goods twenty miles before they can get them on board ship in order to send them to the market at Oban. I hope the Postmaster-General will give his attention to this matter, as it is by no means right that the present state of things should exist.
      9.0 P.M.
      I wish also to refer to the men who put up the posts and telegraph wires. Their complaint is that the Government makes

      2233
      them travel overtime and does not pay them anything for it, although it is much to the advantage of the Government, because they are thereby enabled to begin work earlier the next day. Moreover, the labourers when away from home in country districts are only paid 6d. a night for lodging allowance. They cannot get accommodation at that rate, and they have to make up the difference out of their own money. I do not think that is right. I understand, further, that when a man is working less than twelve miles away from headquarters he gets an allowance, if he is working twenty-four miles away he gets an allowance, but if he is twenty-four and a half miles away he is allowed nothing at all. That does not seem to be fair. He also has to travel in his own time. I hope the representative of the Government will be able to give me a satisfactory reply on these points.
      Mr. HUDSON: We are all very pleased t o hear both of the reforms which the Postmaster - General has already put into practice, and of those to which he intends to give effect as early as is practicable. I wish to put one or two questions in regard to a body of men who are deeply concerned about their position, namely, the engineering department of the Post Office. In 1904 a Memorandum was issued notifying that a different system of recruiting would be adopted. Shortly afterwards it worked out to the extent that 25 per cent. of the appointments made would be made from the University. That I believe was put into effect a little over three years ago. These appointments from the University, I understand, are made to the second-class clerkships in the Department. Consequently those who have been recruited in the ordinary way would and have got up to third-class clerkships find a stagnation in the matter of promotion, and they are deeply concerned. I am informed further that the University men not only get second-class positions, but also have the advantage of a course of lectures and special training which is not open to the other men. It is estimated that the University men recruited in this way will cost the Government, including salary, at least £1,000 each. The men recruited under the old system get none of the advantages of lectures or of training. They have to provide them at their own expense. I understand that a provision is contemplated whereby no man shall be able to go from the third-class to the second-class after
      2234
      reaching thirty-five years of age, and that consequently for the older men in the service the opportunity for promotion will be entirely gone.
      This is naturally a case of deep concern to the men. I have several times been approached, as representing one of the largest cities, upon the subject, and I should like to put it to the Postmaster-General as to what are his intentions in regard to these men, who have been recruited in the usual way from the telegraphists department, who have been selected to take the various positions, who have endeavoured to train themselves, and who in the past have proved that they are successful men in the engineering department. What opportunity are they to have in the future? They ask that an inquiry should be held into the whole of the circumstances of the case, and on the face of it it really seems as though it is demanded. After serving a considerable time, and endeavouring to qualify themselves, to have their opportunities cut off is naturally a very important matter to them. I would ask the Postmaster-General to be good enough to look very closely into this important matter. If it is necessary to bring in individual men up to a certain percentage, so far as technique, so far as engineering ability is concerned, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that they all have equal opportunity of passing an examination for engineering positions, so that one man should not have the advantage of being trained at the expense of the State while another man has to train at his own expense; and also not have the opportunity, by an age limit being fixed, to graduate to the higher positions.
      Mr. HOHLER: There are two short points that I would like to impress on the attention of the Secretary to the Post Office. First I would like to call attention to the post office accommodation at a place called Gillingham in Kent. Gillingham is one of the largest towns in the county; it has a population of between 50,000 and 60,000 people. The post office accommodation is three broken-down cottages which have been made into one. Nobody lives on the premises. The accommodation is wholly inadequate. There are a great number of weekly pensions paid there too. The present state of affairs has resulted in two robberies within a period of under two months. In the one case about £200 disappeared, and has never been traced. In the other case £400 was carried off, but owing to the

      2235
      ability of the police and some of the postal staff from Chatham the thieves, luckily, were arrested in London, and most of the money recovered. I have carefully looked over these premises and it is lamentable that a town of the size should only have this accommodation afforded. Really it is no accommodation at all. The postal authorities cannot pay much rent for the present premises. They could, I think, well afford to erect suitable premises in a suitable position for this great and growing town.
      The other point that I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to is that of the personal grievance of an employeé. I am particularly interested in the Army reservists. The case to which I ask the attention of the Postmaster-General—that he will give his personal consideration to and investigate—is that of a man named Taylor. This man served twenty-one years in the Army, and was discharged with a very good character, and a pension. He was two and a-half years in the post office. He was dismissed, it being alleged that he used obscene language in answer to a subscriber on the telephone. The man denies the charge. There is nothing clear but the allegation of an irascible doctor at the other end of the telephone, ringing up somebody late at night. This doctor is named Taylor, too. But we all know that it is quite possible to ring up the Exchange for some distant number late at night, and if a wrong number is given for the person who has been rung up to be angry, and perhaps to use strong language. It seems to me that merely on the allegation of the doctor, who could not tell for a certainty whether the words he said he heard came from the operator or a man at the other end of the line, to dismiss a man is rather hard. It seems to me a matter for inquiry. The matter was hung up at the post office from 21st November to 1st December last. The man absolutely denies the alleged offence. I am sure the Postmaster-General would not like to do an injustice in this matter, and I should like him, if he would, to inquire into it and see if some mistake has not been made.
      Mr. BYLES: There is a small grievance, Mr. Whitley, that I have against my right hon. Friend the Postmaster - General, although as a man I give way to no one in my general admiration of his character, the way he discharges the duties of his
      2236
      high office, and the liberal manner in which he has entertained important postal reforms which widely affect the nation. But I must ask leave to bring before the Committee the case to which I refer. It is that of the borough I represent. Salford is an ancient and Royal Borough of 250,000 inhabitants. It is indeed one of the largest municipalities in the country. It so happens that there are three or four villages in the land bearing the same name—that of Salford. I have, through questions in the House, elicited the fact that some 15,000,000 postal communications pass through Salford Post Office every year. I have tried to find out how many postal communications pass through these three or four trumpery villages but so small are they that no return apparently is kept, and I have been unable to get that information. I have asked the Postmaster-General whether he will not issue a regulation that Salford without the addition of Manchester or Lancashire or anything else should be a sufficient address for these 15,000,000 communications which go through that borough every year. He refused me on the ground that the comparatively small village of Salford, Chipping Norton, or somewhere else which has a dozen communications in the year, or perhaps twenty-five, would have to write to Chipping Norton with Salford, and therefore he makes my friends and constituents and their correspondents go to the labour of writing the word Manchester 15,000,000 times every year in order to save these Chipping Norton people. I say that is unreasonable. I have asked him to issue a regulation and he has refused, and so now I have to bring it before the Committee and to ask the Committee to join with me in reducing the salary of the Postmaster-General by £100 as a proper rebuke for his refusal.
      Many years ago I lived at Bradford, which has quite as many virtues as Salford. It is about the same size, and an enlightened Postmaster-General of that day issued a regulation that all letters addressed to Bradford should go to Bradford, Yorkshire. There is a Bradford-on-Avon and a Bradford near Manchester, and a Bradford in Wiltshire, yet anybody in Manchester who wrote to Bradford had his letters sent to Bradford in Yorkshire and not to Bradford near Manchester or Bradford-on-Avon. Anyone who wrote letters in Wilts had his letter sent to Yorkshire and not to Bradford in Wilt-

      2237
      shire. All I ask is that the same sensible arrangement should be made with regard to Salford as to Bradford.
      The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): Perhaps I might be now allowed to reply to the questions put to me by hon. Members. I may say I am sure my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and the officials of the Post Office must feel very grateful for the kindly manner in which the various Members who have drawn attention to subjects with which they were not satisfied have spoken of what the Postmaster-General has done. An hon. Gentleman has asked me a question as to farmers' telephones. I have to say where sufficient subscribers used a line jointly there will be no extra charge for distance. As to automatic telephones we have experimented, and we have already asked for tenders for four.
      Mr. WILES: Will the farmers have free use for £3 a year?
      Captain NORTON: Yes; for the sum of £3 a year they will have unlimited calls on their local exchange. With reference to the question of post-cards, some hon. Members seem to think we are doing a great injustice to the trade. The trade generally will be very little affected, because their trade is principally done in picture post-cards, and post-cards which will not be used by us. An hon. Gentleman suggested that we should not sell these cards in large numbers. I fail to see how we could do otherwise. Firms which wish to obtain large numbers of these cards would only have to pay a small boy to come in and out of the Post Office every other minute asking for five or a dozen at a time until they had got the quantity they require. A question was raised by the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Wiles), to whom the Department owe something for taking such an interest in stamps and supplying us with such valuable information. In that connection, I might mention, an hon. Member suggested that the Post Office never took advice from outside, and that any such suggestion met with opposition from the officials. But a little later in his remarks he pointed out that the late Member for Canterbury, Mr. Henniker Heaton, had introduced great reform in the Post Office service.
      Mr. MORTONHe forced them upon you.
      Captain NORTON: Then as regards the question of the marking of registered letters, that subject will be considered. With regard to the staff of the National Telephone Company the Postmaster-General has already given a pledge that that staff will, broadly speaking, be taken over as a whole. On the question of split duties no efforts are spared to reduce the attendances of postmen, and within the last four years the number of three attendance duties has been substantially diminished, and four attendances are abolished. For example, in 1906 there were 6,996 postmen, and 60 per cent. of them had three or four separate attendances each, whereas in 1911 there are 8,009 postmen, of whom 38 per cent. have three attendances and none have four; and the number of postmen having only one attendance has been nearly doubled since 1906, so I hope that will give satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen. Coming to the question of the promotion of postmen, the Hobhouse Committee not only did not recommend that they should have further promotion, but actually took away a certain amount of promotion. The Central Telegraph Office employées were given special pay because they were at a disadvantage in a certain way, especially as regards holiday.
      The hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) brought forward the case of a boy who was dismissed. I can only say that most of these discipline cases come before me, and I have no knowledge whatever of that particular case, and neither has the Postmaster-General. If the hon. and learned Member will-lay the case before me I will make inquiry into it and see that justice is done. I can assure the Committee, as they doubtless well know, these cases of discipline are most carefully considered, more especially in connection with boys, from whom such a high state of discipline is not expected, as from the older employées. The hon. and learned Member also dealt with the case of the Liverpool telegraphists. I can only say the Hobhouse Committee went carefully into the case of the telegraphists all over the country, but it is only natural that the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to see Liverpool placed in a superior condition to that of all other towns in the country. That is no doubt the feeling of every hon. Member. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Salford"] We are constantly hearing of these cases in which Members urge the claims of their own constituents.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: If I may say so, as a Liverpool Member, I entirely dissent from that proposition. I may also say that all the Liverpool Members think the Liverpool telegraphists have not been treated fairly.
      Mr. WATT: In Scotland we only want justice.
      Captain NORTON: Then the blame lies at the door of the Hobhouse Committee. The telegraphists have always maintained that they were dissatisfied by any decision given by a Departmental Committee. I have for a dozen years in this House championed their cause, and they assured me that once they received a Committee of the House of Commons to deal with their case they would abide loyally by the decisions of that Committee, and the decision would be binding upon the whole service for a period of at least ten years. The Hobhouse Committee went most carefully into this question. They had witnesses "brought before them of almost every class with the exception of some classes which were too small to deal with; the cases were gone into with the greatest care, and the Hobhouse Committee decided to give those employed in the Central Telegraph Office pay not only above Liverpool but above every other part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) spoke of boys being punished for trivial offences. I can assure the hon. Member that the very greatest care is always taken as regards these boys. As to the suggested fresh inquiry, I think the Postmaster-General will deal with that point himself. As to the interpretation to be placed upon the Report, the only case of real weight has been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and my right hon. Friend was guided by their interpretation.
      Mr. JOHN WARD: Which recommendation is that?
      Captain NORTON: The question of the basis of classification whether the units of work and the cost of living were to be considered as a whole, or whether the units of work were to be considered and then the cost of living was to be added to that.
      Mr. J. WARD: Did the Department submit to the Law Officers of the Crown the interpretation of the Committee's decision as to the whole of the locality or just a section of it?
      Captain NORTON: I do not think that was considered by my right hon. Friend of sufficient moment. The only question which involved any doubt was submitted to the Law Officers, and they gave a decision with which I think everyone will agree. The hon. Member for Malden (Sir Fortescue Flannery) raised the case of the sub-postmasters, and suggested that they should have the option of deciding whether they would go on under the old scale or the new. Some of them went on under the old scale and some of them under the new scale, and now that they have found that the old scale was to their advantage they desire, after a certain time, to go back to the old system. With reference to the question of bags passing through their offices, may I point out to the hon. Baronet that those letters are not sorted; they are simply passed on, and, therefore, the amount of labour entailed is infinitesimal. The desire of the sub-postmasters seems to Inc to be a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." The hon. Member for West Nottingham asked a question with reference to the factories at Nottingham. I am afraid the only answer I can give is, "Wait and see," because the Factory Committee is considering this matter, and they have not yet arrived at a decision.
      The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Gardner) asked a question about way-leaves. The Postmaster-General naturally will have the rights he now possesses over the public roads. I think that is one of the reasons why the whole telephonic system should be under the Postmaster-General, in order that the public at large may derive the greatest benefit from the system. With regard to what has been said about the new Committee, of course the Postmaster-General can give no pledge about a matter of that kind, and I would point out that it is only three and a-half years since the present Committee gave its decision, and that Committee took no less than two years to consider the matter. Consequently, to suggest that a new Committee should be now appointed is suggesting a course which I think my right hon. Friend can scarcely adopt. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton), with whom I had much communication, wants a great deal done for Sutherlandshire, and he has pointed out that nothing has been (lone for Scotland. All I can say is that Scotland has got the Premiership and the Lord Chancellorship. [An HON. MEMBER: "They get everything."] Scotland has

      2241
      recently sent to another place the Secretary of State for War. If the Postmaster-General did everything which hon. Members desire to be done for Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and other parts of the country, the result would simply be that the £4,000,000 we now produce for the revenue of the country would not be forthcoming. It has been the decision of Parliament that the Post Office, whilst giving certain facilities to the public, shall be a revenue-producing Department; and in the face of that we cannot do more than we are doing for Scotland. With regard to the special point as to the telegraphic extension referred to by the hon. Member, may I point out that it was only in exceptional cases that this privilege was granted, and it was only granted on the condition that the deficiency was made good.
      Mr. MORTON: That is not what the Prime Minister said.
      Captain NORTON: The arrangement made in the case of the Budget of 1906 was that unless the Post Office assumed two-thirds of the liability the condition would not apply.
      Mr. MORTON: Read the quotation all through.
      Captain NORTON: I have not got the quotation.
      Mr. MORTON: I sent the hon. Member a copy of it.
      Captain NORTON: Yes, the hon. Member has sent me a good many communications. I can promise that I will go most carefully into the points he has brought before me, and if it is at all possible to meet the hon. Member I will use my utmost efforts with the Postmaster-General.
      Mr. MORTON: The same promise was made twelve months ago and nothing came of it.
      Captain NORTON: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt) raised the question of the mail routes in the Outer Hebrides, and he pointed out that the Secretary for Scotland had a fund at his disposal for meeting cases in connection with these poorer districts. I would suggest to my hon. Friend he should endeavour to deal with he Scottish Office, because they are a people who have the fund, and not the Post Office.
      Mr. HUNT: Is not this a Post Office job?
      Captain NORTON: No; the Scottish Office is not under our control. The Secretary for Scotland would not dispose of any of his fund directly to the Post Office, and the hon. Member's best method of proceeding would be to apply to the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to the allowances of the gang hands and their being obliged to travel in their own time, we deal most fairly and most generously with all the line men and others in the Engineering Department, but if the hon. Member will bring any special case of grievance or any special case of a man who is not getting the allowance to which he is entitled I will carefully investigate it. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Hudson) asked about promotions from third-class clerks to second-class engineers. Those who enter the Service and rise to be third-class clerks are obliged to pass certain examinations in order to qualify for the higher position. The age fixed by the Engineer-in-Chief, who has special knowledge in these technical matters, was thirty-five. Many second-class engineers enter from the university, and their limit of age is twenty-four. It was thought that the age of thirty-five for those who entered in a lower capacity was a fair arrangement. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Kohler) is anxious for a better post office at Gillingham. If the hon. Member will write to me and give full information about the office with which he is dissatisfied, I will carefully inquire into it and see that the postal branch which deals with buildings investigates the matter. With regard to the case of the retired soldier which he raised, I can assure him I went roost carefully, and, as an old soldier myself, most sympathetically into that man's case and, not only did I do so, but I passed it on to my right hon. Friend, who also investigated it, and we both came to the conclusion that the case had been fairly proved against the man and that no injustice had been done. My right hon. Friend will deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Kyles), and I hope he will be able to give the hon. Member satisfaction.
      Mr. NEWTON: Before I come to the small grievance with which I have to trouble the Committee, I should like 10 be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his speech this afternoon. I listened to it with very great pleasure. It was the most businesslike speech I Lave heard in this House during the short time I have been a Member of it. With regard

      2243
      to the agricultural telephones which he mentioned in the course of his speech, I think he deserves congratulation for making that departure. I ask him not to be discouraged if in the early stage of the experiment it does not perhaps meet with a very great amount of success. I believe success will undoubtedly come after it has been tried some little time. Any person who has travelled in Denmark must have been struck by the great use to which the telephone is put amongst the farmers there as an integral part of the co-operative movement which flourishes so extensively in that country. I recognise it is unfortunate we should have to raise grievances on behalf of small bodies of our constituents, but I do desire to raise one small point as to two petitions which the right hon. Gentleman has received from the indoor and outdoor staff of the Harwich post office. The claim, of course, in this case for revision is based upon the usual ground of an increase in units of work and in the cost of living. The cost of living has undoubtedly increased all over the country, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that Harwich is rather in an exceptional position.
      The cost of living there has, I think, increased more than elsewhere for two principal reasons. One is a geographical reason. Harwich has the sea upon one side and the river upon the other, and there is really only a small area of land for the cultivation of vegetables and such like, and the price of those commodities is undoubtedly high. When in addition it is remembered you have, there a seaside resort to which many visitors come, it is obvious that during the season at all events prices are rushed up much too high. There is another cause. The Admiralty are declaring the port of Harwich as a naval base. That brings a great deal of extra work to the Post Office, and it also has a disastrous effect on rents. The right hon. Gentleman, I hope, has been told, either by myself in a letter I wrote to him, or in one of these petitions that the cost of cottage accommodation in that part of the country is enormously high. There is one particular case which I think will convince any Member of the Committee of that. There is to-day working in the Harwich Post Office a man recently transferred from a town in the same grade as Harwich. In the town he left he was
      2244
      paying 2s. 6d. a week for a very good cottage with a garden, but he has had to pay in Harwich 10s. 6d. a week for less accommodation without a garden. That is an increase out of that man's wages for lodging of 7s. 6d. a week. Rents have increased enormously quite recently in Harwich, and they will undoubtedly increase still further. The rates are going up, and they must go up further. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman therefore to give a sympathetic hearing to the petitions presented to him on behalf of the indoor and outdoor staff and the workers of this town of Harwich.
      Mr. DENMAN: It would not, I think, be right if those of us who are interested in the Boy Labour Committee did not thank the Postmaster-General for his remarks under that heading. We are all specially interested in the problem of dealing with our boys and girls. We have always recognised that the Post Office was one of those employers which had a position of special difficulty, and at the same time a position of especial influence. We welcome the cooperation of the Post Office in our Commonwealth. Of course our ultimate claim is bound to be that the Civil Service, as a whole, is a sufficiently large employer to have no excess of juvenile labour at all, and that it must so arrange employment that it can give adequate employment to every juvenile employed in the service, subject, of course, to suitability of character and qualification. We recognise the great progress made by the Postmaster-General and by Sir Matthew Nathan, the Chairman of the Committee', which is investigating this subject, and we will do our best here to make their scheme successful. We are grateful indeed to the Postmaster-General for the observations he has made.
      There are one or two other subjects on which I feel I must detain the House. I do not wish to introduce personal grievances, but I am afraid that one of the symptoms of this Debate has been the introduction of the personal clement. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), who the other night moved the rejection of the Motion for the Third Reading of the Parliament Bill, this evening has found occasion to introduce by name a telegraph messenger to the attention of this Imperial Parliament, and to point out that he was dismissed for infringing the regulations of the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this was a case of very harsh

      2245
      treatment. Of course, the House is perfectly entitled to advertise names, but I am not convinced that this is a very excellent form of raising these questions. I do not know why the Post Office should be put in an exceptional position in this matter. I do not think it is good for the employées of the Post Office that this sort of personal advertisement should be given. We do not hear the names of railway servants used in this House when a man is dismissed, but in this Debate on the Post Office we have had three individual names introduced. We have had the name of Mr. Webb, to whom apparently the Post Office owed £23; we have had the name of Mr. Taylor, who also had a grievance. I do not know whether that is the best way to educate the Postmaster-General on these subjects. I rather think it would be better to get shorthand typists to set these matters forth.
      I should like to say a few words on a really vital question, and that is the subject of wage adjustment in the Post Office. Every year we are impressed on all sides with the futility of present methods. We get six or seven hours of discussion upon the entire Post Office organisation, and at the end of that time we are certain of an amount of public opinion in favour of the course we advocate. The problem is as to what would constitute a really suitable period for the consideration of the Hobhouse Committee's Report, and what would suffice for a consideration of the points therein raised. The problem is as to what would constitute a suitable period during which the Hobhouse Committee Report was to suffice. I very much doubt if the Postmaster-General's statement today can be taken in support of the Hob-house Committee's recommendation. In January, 1910, the Postmen's Federation put forward one scheme and the National Joint Committee put forward another. The National Joint Committee scheme was, I think, a Standing Committee of this House, which should be in permanent session and should be in a position to advise the Postmaster-General. We were invited to pledge ourselves to support this special Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry. I do not want to comment at all on the relative merits of these two schemes. I am perfectly certain, so far as some members are concerned, that they are pledged to both proposals. There is no kind of scientific decision on this subject unless the Government will devise some permanent machinery by which at regularly stated intervals the ques-
      2246
      tion of Post Office wages will be dealt with in the manner in which they were dealt with in the past. The whole history of Post Office agitation is spasmodic pressure resisted for years and then a rather ignominious surrender. I say ignominious surrender because it must always look like it whatever may be the motives of it. It has the appearance of surrender by a Minister of the Crown to pressure. It may be he thinks there is justification for it, but still it always looks as if he was obliged to give way to pressure put upon him in Parliament and in other ways by the Post Office Association.
      In the Post Office you have an exceptional position no doubt. There is no danger of a strike in the Post Office. The Association will not agree to a strike, and I think their sense of the public importance of their work is too strong to permit Post Office officials to strike. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the reason why the strongest consideration should be shown them."1 I was only reasoning with a view of showing that they have not that simple device which other employées have. For instance, I believe the railway servants are not convinced that a strike is an impossibility, but so long as the Post Office Association feels itself really debarred from using the weapon of a strike the officials must have some other natural means of a settlement of wages periodically, and I would ask the Postmaster-General earnestly to consider whether he cannot devise some regular machinery that would be worthy of British statesmanship under which questions of this sort could be settled. You can lay down certain definite reasons for revision. You can say that it should be held when the general level of wages changes or the nature of the work performed alters or there is a change in the general cost of living. All these factors may give a reason for a revision, perhaps every seven or ten years, and you will find that those three causes have operated and given substantial reason for an addition to the wages and an improvement of the position of Post Office servants after periods of that kind. Let us therefore have some machinery which will bring this question up at stated times and prevent it coming up with this slow, persistent, and ineffective pressure which is put upon us annually in these Debates. I venture to think that the result would be more satisfactory to hon. Members, more satisfactory to the Post Office,

      2247
      far more consonant with the dignity of the House of Commons, and certainly with the good conduct of the Post Office and its servants.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Representing as I have the honour to do, a constituency where there are a large number of important commercial bodies I want to call the attention of the Committee to the view taken by commercial men upon some of the important Post Office questions which have been only just touched upon tonight. I have had the privilege recently of several interviews with the Postmaster-General in introducing deputations to him, and I join with those who have preceded me to-night in expressing, on behalf of myself and on behalf of most influential commercial deputations from Liverpool, the very highest appreciation of the most businesslike and courteous treatment that he extended to the views of the commercial gentlemen that I had the honour of introducing to him. It is, therefore, with no feelings of pleasure that I join in supporting a Motion to take away from the right hon. Gentleman any part of that salary which we all agree he has earned every penny of, but such is the unfortunate method by which the procedure of this House rules that these matters have to be discussed. It has to be, and it raises a point of general importance, which I am going to claim the courtesy of the Committee in discussing in a moment. I want, however, first of all to deal with one or two minor points which have been raised. First of all, as regards the Liverpool telegraphists, I join with the lion Member for Walton in the view which has been very forcibly pressed upon all the Liverpool Members by representative deputations of the Liverpool telegraphists. They are extremely dissatisfied with the rates of wages which they receive at the present time, and their point, be it good or be it bad is this: that their wages have remained the same, unrevised in any particular, since the year 1890. It is possible there may be some error about that, but I am quite certain that the Postmaster-General will, in spite of the Hobhouse Committee's Report, and in spite of any number of Committees' reports, deal with that matter and look into it, and that is what we Members for Liverpool think ought to be done, and that is all we ask.
      2248
      The Liverpool postal officials are, unfortunately, in fact to a large degree dissatisfied with the existing conditions, not only in respect to wages, but in respect to other matters also. There is the question, for instance, of the methods adopted in regard to promotion in that office. I have complaints before me and particulars in my hand, but I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle that it is undesirable to deal, if it can possibly be avoided, with individual cases in the Committee of this House. Therefore, by the leave of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General I will bring these particular cases to his attention in private, and not trouble the Committee with them now. In regard to that class of complaint of which we have had many here to-night it is obvious that it is most undesirable that the Committee should be troubled with the details of these minor complaints, whether they come from the extremity of Sutherlandshire, or whether they come from one of our big cities. They are, to a great extent, trivial and unimportant personal complaints. They have great importance locally, but ought to be dealt with in a way which will not occupy the time of the House, which has already been much curtailed for dealing with important business. The solution, of course, is some provision by which local complaints can be brought before some kind of representative body of men who to some degree represent the different districts of the country, but not before this House. It is from that point of view that the commercial community of Liverpool and of many other cities in this country who during the last few weeks have been following the example of Liverpool are anxious that there should be some arrangement made by which the Post Office can have the advantage of some kind of Advisory Committee of a semi-representative character, upon which there shall be commercial representatives, business men, coming from different parts of the country, before whom all these minor complaints, which at present can only be brought up on this one occasion in the year in this very ineffective way, can be adequately discussed and disposed of without wasting the time of the House. That is one point of view from which the proposal is relevant.
      Take as an illustration of that: the existing telegraph system. The telegraph system in this country from many points of view is very good, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am in any

      2249
      way reflecting on the good administration of our telegraph system by the Post Office if I criticise it, but we all know that, telegrams take a very long time in passing in this country. If one was asked how long he would say is the average time a telegram takes to get an answer, he would say an hour or an hour and a-half—a very appreciable time. For commercial purposes telegraphic communication is of very little use unless it is a matter of minutes. It is not a question of payment, but of time. Let me take an illustration. Liverpool men, wanting to telegraph in a hurry to London, very frequently do it via New York, because cabling to New York and from New York back to London you can get a telegram delivered in London, as a general rule, in about ten minutes. To telegraph direct from Liverpool to London will probably take twenty minutes or half-an-hour or more. I have had, as the Postmaster-General will agree, put before him as instances the details of a certain number of telegrams which have passed between Liverpool and London simply as a test of the time taken. Commercial people are dissatisfied with that degree of telegraphic facilities, which are quite insufficient for their business. If we had some kind of advisory body, composed of commercial men, to whom these matters could be referred, we should find that in fact greater facilities would be afforded by the Post. Office and that, as in most commercial matters, the provision of greater facilities would result in a greater demand and the greater demand in an increase of profits. These are the kind of views with which commercial men are thoroughly suited to deal and which can be adequately discussed in a committee of that kind, and which cannot, I submit, be adequately discussed in this House. Take that as an illustration. To go into the question adequately and deal with it means the obtaining of a very large number of statistics going into the whole question of the provision of facilities and what amount of extra wires, and so on, are necessary in order to cope with the increase of business. We cannot deal with these questions here. We are not experts, we cannot have expert reports before us, and the time, apart from anything else, is totally inadequate to permit of the House dealing successfully with such topics as that.
      Take another illustration—the proposed transfer which is coming off in a few months of the telephone system of the National Telephone Company to the Government. Under that system we trust and
      2250
      hope that the Post Office will improve the telephone system of the country. We all know how very much room there is for improvement at present. Trunk telephoning is at present to a large extent a mere luxury, of very little use for business purposes. How long does it take to get on with a telephone call from London to Liverpool or Manchester? One goes to the telephone and is told there is a delay; it may be very often half an hour. That is quite an ordinary time. Before I went with the deputation to the Postmaster-General the other day I telephoned to Liverpool in order to get some information for the Postmaster-General. There was a delay of forty minutes. What use is that to business men? In America you get through in three or four minutes on long distances. That is notorious to all business men. That is the kind of thing upon which business men are thoroughly qualified to advise the Department. A committee of business men will say, "Give us the facilities and we will tell you the response you will get from business men, the amount of calls that you will get, and the amount of use, and from that we can make a calculation as to the rate which will pay, with the provision of sufficient facilities to meet the demands of business men." This is not, of course, the occasion to argue in detail the question of the conditions under which the Post Office should be allowed to take over the National Telephone Company's business, and so on, and the best method of administration. The proper opportunity will be when the Telephone Bill is introduced. But this Debate, I suggest, illustrates in a striking manner the futility of the notion that Parliamentary control, though necessary, though good and valuable for certain purposes, is of much or any value for the purpose of effective criticism of the effective administration of a complicated Department.
      Criticism of administration can only be brought to bear effectively by men who are in permanent touch with the administration, who can have experts before them, and can receive returns and be advised by the administration, and who, therefore, would be qualified not only to offer criticism from time to time on rare occasions, but to argue it out, to follow it up meeting after meeting. That is the only kind of criticism of an administration which can be permanently effective. I do not for a moment suggest that Parliamentary control is not essential and is not valuable for other purposes on big

      2251
      questions of policy, but for pettifogging details, such as many of the questions raised to-night have been, the whole Committee will agree that if this House could be relieved of the necessity of going into these details, and they could be transferred to some other body equally representative, where the views of the different localities could be made effective, this House would be immensely the gainer by the change. Under the present system it is not a waste of public time that they should be raised, because there is no other method of raising them. But compared to the alternative that I suggest I submit most strongly that it is a lamentable waste of valuable public time.
      Mr. CASSEL: I should like to join in the universal chorus of appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's very interesting, able, and businesslike statement. I wish in that statement lie could have avoided referring to those whose views my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and myself are representing to-night as a selfish and interested agitation. I think if he was doing, what undoubtedly he is doing, an injury to the stationery trade he might at least have refrained from adding insult to the injury. I am afraid we are all rather selfish when our interests are attacked, and if by selfish and interested agitation he means that this trade is protecting its interests against a wholly unjustifiable and unwarrantable attack of a Government Department, I think those words are in no sense condemnatory. The free distribution of these post-cards and letter-cards was attempted to be justified by the hon. Member for South Islington air. Wiles) on the ground that the Post Office made a profit on the actual transmission of the post-cards and letter-cards, and that that profit was sufficient to cover the cost and still leave a profit to the Post Office. It seems to me that is an utterly unsound point, for this reason. In the carriage of post-cards and letter-cards the Post Office has an absolute monopoly, but in the supply of post-cards and letter-cards it is brought into competition with private traders. I rest my objection to this on the broad principle that no Government has a right to give away anything for nothing where it is brought into competition with private traders. You cannot justify it any more than you can justify the bringing of prison-made goods into competition with goods made in the ordinary course of trade. That principle, which is applicable
      2252
      generally, applies with special force, where the very trade with which the Postmaster-General is in competition has been built up on the faith of statements made by his predecessors in office that no such thing should be done as the distributing of such cards free.
      As long ago as 1881 a Liberal Postmaster-General said that as a matter of justice and policy a small charge must for the future be made for the card itself. Even if the policy has changed, the justice of the position surely has not changed. On the faith of that statement and on the faith of other statements made by Members of the same party as that to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, that industry has been built up, and the amount of official cards has increased very largely, while the amount of post-cards supplied by the trade has also increased very largely. Mr. Fawcett recognised that that had been an advantage to the Department. On the strength of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that it would be unjust if the Department entered into competition with this trade without making some charge for the cards they have built up their trade, and I say it is a gross injustice to them now for the right hon. Gentleman to turn round and say, "Notwithstanding the statement made by my predecessor, we are going to supply these postcards free." The right hon. Gentleman brought forward only two arguments in support of that position. One was that it was a convenience to the public. No doubt that is true. It is always a convenience to the public to get anything for nothing. [An HON. MEMBER: "They seldom do."] This is going to be one of those rare occasions. The Post Office will find that this is bad policy, because it is of the highest interest to the public that the rights of private traders should be respected.
      The other argument which the right hon. Gentleman brought in support of his policy was that this is the practice of all foreign nations. I was rather surprised to hear that coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because if it weighs with him so much I shall soon expect to see him a supporter of the tariff policy, as that same argument could be used with equal force in order to support the view that we ought to adopt the tariff policy. For myself, I may say that I have never put that argument by itself as a reason for adopting a tariff policy, because you must look at the

      2253
      conditions of those other countries for the purpose of seeing whether the same conditions apply. But as that would apply in the case of Tariff Reform so I say it applies here too, and you have got to see whether in those other countries those conditions exist which apply in this case, and whether in those other countries you have got the fact that a large private trade has grown up, and that capital has been expended on the faith of representations made by the predecessors in office of the right hon. Gentleman; and I say that it is nothing short of a breach of faith with this trade that after these statements have been made that policy should be abandoned.
      Mr. J. WARD: I happen to have been a Member of the Hobhouse Committee, and would like to say a few words in defence of it. I was rather surprised at the lecture delivered to the House by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) a little while ago. It is not often that one Member instructs the House how they should attend to grievances, and it was more remarkable to hear his statement, holding as he does a somewhat semi-official position, that, if he gave any advice whatever to Members with reference to grievances in the Post Office from his inside knowledge, he would suggest it would be better for them to type their speeches and send them through the ordinary channels to the chiefs of the Department than to ventilate their grievances in this House. That was not, very complimentary to the Department, and I should have thought, at any rate, that the criticisms by Members of this House of the Department of what has been described as pettifogging details should receive attention, and from my own observations I would say that they do receive attention from the chiefs of the Department concerned. During the Debate the Financial Secretary of the Department stated that a question had been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether, in deciding the status of a certain locality or branch office as the case may be, the cost of living should be taken into account in connection with the volume of work in the district, and I understood that the Law Officers of the Crown advised the Department that the two things should be taken into account. So far as I am concerned, as one of the Members on that Committee, we had no hesitation on that point at all, and we never thought that there would be any difficulty about it.
      2254
      We know that it was not a question of locality, but of volume of work and the cost of living. We had previously decided what the wages or the standard or status of a particular district should be for pay or emoluments connected with the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides. Certain cases were brought to our knowledge in which the political influence of Members of this House had been sufficient, apart from any other consideration, to secure advantages. Things of that sort had grown up, and it was decided that there should be a common denominator, some standard, that could be applied generally, apart altogether from the representation of the locality in this House or influences which might be brought to bear in other ways. And we fixed upon these two considerations—volume of work in the locality and the cost of living—as the deciding factors of payment. I think if that standard had been honestly and straightforwardly applied in the way intended by the Committee it would have been found that no better way, in spite of all the criticism which has been bestowed upon it in this House since the Hobhouse Committee reported, has yet been developed. It has been suggested to-night that, there should he some sort of local consultative committee, but I do not think it would meet the case. It has been suggested that there should be another Committee of this House. Those who are of that opinion had better serve on the next Committee. I have not the slightest objection to a Committee of this House being appointed to inquire into this subject even next week. If the Postmaster-General chooses to suggest that it should be done I should vote for it to-morrow, but with this proviso: that under no circumstances would I ever serve upon it. So long as that is understood, I have no objection to someone else serving on the Committee.
      For myself I do not interfere with the suggestion. I do not oppose it, I do not support it, I do not do anything with it; I merely say that I am not going to be one of the Committee. The next thing I wish to point out, and which I think has caused the most trouble to the department, is the question of volume of work. In regard to this point, the intention of the Hobhouse Committee was this—and let the right hon. Gentleman never mistake what was their intention—as to the volume of work and cost of living. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, has never heard an observation from a single

      2255
      member of the Hobhouse Committee in this House, with the exception of the Chairman it may he—I make that reservation—to show that the suggestion to which I now call attention was not always in our minds. Take a district which the Post Office regards as a suitable illustration of our suggestion. You take the whole of the postal work in that area, and you then have, as it were, an indication of the importance of the locality to the Department. You are enabled to some extent to decide the standard which the district occupies, taking into account the cost of living in the locality, as well as the volume of work. In the case of Brighton, owing to the fact that it is a seside resort, it may be that he cost of living is high, though in certain times of the year the volume of work may be comparatively small. These two things, therefore, should be taken into account. But unfortunately this is what the Department has done. So far as the interpretation of the Hobhouse Committee's suggestion is concerned the Department has gone right, but when it has come to the volume of work in a particular district, they have excluded certain kinds of work — work done under certain conditions. The work is done in offices directly under the control of the Department, or under some postmaster.
      I take my own locality into account only because I know it. There may be others which are in the same position, and I expect it is similar. For instance, I go down the High Street of Stoke-on-Trent, where the great proportion of the work is done. I discover that the office there is on the standard of what is called a sub-office. Of this I know, because I have asked questions about it in the House. It is in the centre of the town, and does the large work of the locality, and would greatly enhance the status of the locality if it were included but merely because it happens to be work done by a sub-post office it is not included at all. One can quite imagine that if the right hon. Gentleman gradually transferred more and more work to sub-post offices he could lower three parts of the localities of the whole country. I think it will be seen at once that that is a grievance, but that is not the result of the Report of the Hobhouse Committee, but it is the result of the narrow and niggardly way in which the recommendations have been interpreted by the Department itself. What we assumed naturally was that you would take the
      2256
      whole work of the district into account, that you would properly balance it up, and also take into account the cost of living, and that when you had approximated those two things you could decide, almost with mathematical accuracy, what the standard of a particular district ought to be in reference to wages and working conditions. That is what we decided, and I believe if that had been carried out in the way we really intended it should have been done a great many criticisms we have heard of to-night could not have been launched against it. I am making no complaint as to my own locality. I am not bringing forward any grievance with reference to my own district. That they have grievances I have not the slightest doubt. I would prefer before any officer should deal with our own locality that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the interpretation of that section of the Committee's Report which stated that the whole volume of work in the locality should be taken into account, irrespective of sub-offices, whether it had been done by direct officers of the Department or whether done in an indirect way by a sub-office. The whole work of the district should be taken into account before you could arrive at the correct standard that the locality should be placed in.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Several of the points that have been raised in this Debate were answered in anticipation in the remarks which I addressed to the Committee this afternoon. For example, with respect to the sale of post-cards and letter-cards at face value the Committee will recollect that I dealt at some length with that question before the hon. Member moved the reduction which is now before the Committee. I will only add with respect to that a few words in reply to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). He said that the action I had taken in this matter was in effect a breach of faith with the stationery trade if you take into account that as long ago as 1881 Mr. Fawcett, the then Postmaster-General, had declared that it would be a wrong thing to sell those articles at their face value. If we go back to 1881 let us go back to it altogether, for at that time the stationery trade were not allowed to sell post-cards at all to pass through the post with adhesive stamps on them. The conditions obviously were entirely different, and besides, as the Committee very well knows, every postal reform

      2257
      which is carried into effect has been refused by some Postmaster-General or other in the days when it was first advocated. If no Postmaster-General is ever to carry out reforms which once had been refused by his predecessor there would be no progress in the Department over which I am called on to preside. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), in a very interesting speech, suggested that the affairs of the Post Office would be better managed if there were a Committee of business men continuously in session to advise on such matters as telegraphs and telephones.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Not continuously.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A standing Committee, at all events. Would he consider that such a Committee would be able to do just ice to the needs of the great City of Liverpool, if it contained on it no representative of Liverpool?
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Yes, certainly.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member says that with much courage Lecause he has a shrewd suspicion that no such Committee is likely to be appointed in the near future. If Liverpool were excluded from such a Committee complaint would certainly be made that the special interests of Liverpool could not receive adequate representation. It is obviously impossible that on a Committee of that character you could have representatives of every great city in the country, still less of the smaller towns; nor would you be able to include a representative of, say, Sutherlandshire—
      Mr. MORTON: Why not?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Or representatives from the remoter districts of Ireland and other outlying parts of the United Kingdom. If you have upon the Committee representatives of the large business houses, you must also have representatives of the smaller commercial men, whose interests might not be the same. You must have representatives of the shopkeeping class. Also, if it is to deal with the questions of the remuneration of labour, you must have representatives of the working classes on it. In fact, your Committee, if it were truly representative, would be as large as the House of Commons itself. My view is that there
      2258
      is no place where you can secure representation of all the interests and of all the districts entitled to be represented, except in this Chamber of which we have the honour to be Members. As for the consideration of details such as those over which the hon. Member says the House of Commons cannot exercise adequate control, I would point out that we do receive at the Post Office now day by day and week by week many representations from the very interests to which he has referred. The two deputations which lie was good enough to bring to me only a few days ago were a striking instance of that. There we had the specific interests of Liverpool business men brought in the most direct fashion to the attention of the heads of the Department. Owing to the representations made several improvements have been carried out in the system of telegraphy between London and Liverpool, the delays which previously existed have been much reduced through various devices that have been employed, and other improvements are being effected. Similarly we get representations from other parts of the country, and, on the whole, I think the system works not unsatisfactorily.
      The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) suggested that the Department was generally right in its interpretation of the Report of the Hobhouse Committee, of which Committee he was an active member; that in the method of calculating units of work and the cost of living we had in general carried out the desires of the Committee; but that we were in error in not including in the units of work the work done at the sub-offices. I have dealt with the point before; but in respect to the particular case which he mentioned I may say that it would make no difference to the classification of the office if the work of the sub-offices were included in the total units of work. I have gone into that point, and I know that it is so. Taking the country generally very few of the offices would have their classification in any way altered if the exceedingly small number of units of work which the sub-offices are able to contribute were included in the head office total, but since the hon. Member desires it I will look into that point again. The hon. Member for West Houghton and others have raised points some of which I endeavoured to deal with beforehand. With respect to the misunderstanding that has arisen among the associations of the staff who consider that I gave a promise

      2259
      to reopen the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee and now decline to do so, I would point out what the question was that was asked me by the deputation from the Trade Union Congress, now more than a year ago. I was asked—after the conversation had turned on the relations between the Trade Union Congress and Postmasters-General — whether I would discuss questions of wages. I replied "Yes." I had in mind the fact that the question of wages was not to be ruled out, that it should not be thought that no one under any circumstances was to raise the question of wages; but that they could be considered as hours, conditions of employment, and other things are considered. But I had no intention—and I made it clear immediately afterwards—that while I was willing to consider any question of the interpretation of the Report of the Hobhouse Committee—and discuss such questions with deputations—that while I was quite willing to consider any question of wages that had not been dealt with by the Hobhouse Committee's Report—I was not, tor reasons that I gave, in a position to throw again into the melting-pot all the results and work of that Committee and review the whole of the main wage scales of the chief classes at the Post Office as though that Committee had never sat and adjudicated upon the question.
      That was made abundantly clear to several deputations more than a year ago; and also in writing. Any misunderstanding that had arisen at the outset ought to have been immediately removed, if indeed misunderstanding there was. To suggest that a question of interpretation should be referred to an outside committee, or some other authority, would be to destroy in a large measure the administrative authority with which the Postmaster-General is necessarily invested, and would be to reopen an enormous number of questions of classification of offices, questions affecting an exceedingly large number of classes of Post Office servants, and it is a proposition which I regret I cannot see my way to accept. One or two specific questions were raised by hon. Members. The electric lighting staff -was referred to.
      Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman rule out the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is much the same. They could not enter into it. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade says that it would be perfectly impossible to add this enormous task to their already excessive work, which they have, I understand, great difficulty in getting through. With regard to the hours mentioned by one hon. Member. The men spoken of have been transferred to the engineering department, where the hours of work are those that he has stated, fifty and a-half per week. Those hours were authorised by the Hobhouse Committee. The hon. Member is misinformed when he says that the hours have been increased without any increase of wages. The wages certainly have been increased in proportion to the increase of hours.
      Mr. TYSON WILSONwas understood to dissent.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the proportionate increase is being paid all round. I will certainly look into that matter. My impression is so, but I dealt with this case some time ago. I did not know it was coming up to-day, or I would have looked into it beforehand. It is not the policy either of the Department or of myself to increase the amount of casual labour or of temporary assistance employed by the Department. I should be most grateful to hon. Members if they will bring to my notice any specific cases in which this is alleged to have been done. So far we have only had vague statements, except in the case of Hull. If there are any instances he can bring to my notice of cased where temporary assistants are being employed where established staff ought to be employed, I shall be glad to look into them. Work in the Post Office fluctuates from time to time; there are certain great seasonal stresses, and you cannot keep men employed all the year round in order to have them at hand to deal with that particular kind of work. Therefore an amount of temporary assistance is necessary. I am anxious to keep it at the lowest possible level, and where employment can be given to men kept at work all the year round it is given. The standing instructions to surveyors and others are that wherever possible established officers shall be employed and casual labour shall not be increased.
      I was asked to make a definite statement as to the period that should elapse before another inquiry is undertaken. I cannot do that. I am not in a position to

      2261
      pledge my successors. I do not know how long I may be at the Post Office. Postmaster-Generals are a fleeting race, and would not be justified in mortgaging the future. The question is not an immediate one, and the Committee will agree that since the new scale of wages are only in force a little over three years it is clearly too soon yet to undertake the great task of a general revision. We will consider later on when the time shall be ripe for another general revision of Post Office wages and conditions of employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the sweet by-and-by."] I should not like to prescribe the precise number of years. The hon. Member for one of the Glasgow Divisions quoted sonic remarks made by the Secretary of the Post Office—remarks which I but very dimly recognised in the manner in which he presented them and with the gloss he put upon them—with regard to the question of the Scottish standard. That is now under consideration. It is not a matter wholly within the province of the Post Office, but one which also affects the Board of Trade, and whether we have arrived at the right standard for Scotland is a matter now under review. The remarks referred to were merely incidental inquiries in the course of a long conversation in which my colleague the Secretary was asking particulars on which he might form a judgment.
      The hon. Member for Westmoreland raised the case of the Ambleside Post Office, which is now under consideration. I admit that there is a certain case for inquiry there. In respect to the desire of the hon. Member for Hampstead as to the later delivery of letters, I will make inquiries and see if anything can be done. The hon. Member for Leicestershire raised a certain question in respect to the telephone employées. I prefer to postpone any definite statement on that head beyond what has already been made until I come to introduce the Telephones Transfer Bill after the Whitsuntide recess. It has been already stated that the staff, with few exceptions, will be taken over by the Post Office, and will be placed in the grades of Post Office employment proper to them, and, of course, they will receive fair and just treatment in the allocation of their places in the ranks of the staff. He suggested that the soldiers of the State had a better claim to positions in the Post Office than boy messengers. Here again we are thrown back upon the old question of what we should do with our boys. [An HON. MEMBER "Enlist them."] I certainly
      2262
      cannot for a moment accept the suggestion that we should tell all our boys, "You shall only be kept on condition that you enlist in the Army." After all, the Post Office is a civilian institution, and should not be made a party to a form of conscription of that character. The hon. Member also raised another point of great interest to Army men as to the way pensions should be paid. That is a matter for the War Office and not for the Post Office, which is simply the agency for distributing pensions. The matter rests with the Secretary of State for War and the hon. Member's representations should be addressed to him.
      I come now to the hon. Member for Salford, who raised the sad case of the Royal Borough of Salford, for which he says the word "Salford" is not a sufficient address, and he asserts that I require the addition of the word "Manchester" on the 15,000,000 letters delivered there every year. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have told him on many occasions when we have discussed this question, not without a little acrimony, that this is not so.
      Mr. BYLES: I at once apologise. I have the greatest affection for the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I know that this is the only cloud that has come between us. I have endeavoured to point out that the word "Manchester" is not necessary, and that millions of letters are delivered at Salford without the address of Manchester upon them. What the hon. Member wants to do is to say that any letter, no matter where it is posted, if it bears "Salford" upon it shall be sent to Salford near Manchester, although it may be addressed within a mile of the village of Salford, near Chipping Norton, to a person whom everybody in the district knows lives at Salford, Chipping Norton. The hon. Member says this letter must go all the way to Manchester, and be delivered at Salford, and then come back as having been wrongly addressed, with the words written upon it, "Try Salford, Chipping Norton."
      Mr. BYLES: The proper address of such a letter is "Salford, Chipping Norton," and the man who addresses his letter improperly in that way should suffer the consequences. A letter addressed to Salford only, and intended for Salford, Manchester, is not adequately addressed. The

      2263
      Postmaster-General told me that Salford is a sufficient address for a telegram but not the correct postal address for Salford, near Manchester, and that Manchester must be added to be accurate.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Generally speaking, I said that Salford was a sufficient address, and there is only the rare exception to which I have referred. I have to consider as well the interests of those residents in what the hon. Member called trumpery villages, and they are entitled to some consideration. I have made inquiries at Manchester and Salford, and I am told there are no complaints. If my hon. Friend will give me a specific instance of a real grievance I will reconsider the matter, but so far no specific instances have been reported to me. I am afraid I am not able to deal with the case of Harwich now, but I will investigate it later. The number of units is far below that necessary to bring the office into a higher class, even though the cost of living were considerably higher than the normal. I listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman), who made some suggestions worthy of consideration for handling these difficult staff questions. The Postmaster-General stands at a point where three interests meet and frequently clash; the interest of the public at large whom the post office exists to serve, the interests of the taxpayer, to whom the post office belongs, and who is concerned to see it yield an adequate return for the money which lie provides for it and is not run at a loss; and the interests of the staff, on whose work its operations depend.
      Mr. HAROLD SMITH: And the interests of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Byles).
      Mr. HAROLD SMITH: And the in-factors have to be taken into consideration, and whoever holds the somewhat arduous office which I have the honour to fill has to take them all into account, and to do, so far as he can, equal justice to the three. That must be my effort, as it has been the effort of my predecessors, and I must leave it to the Committee to judge how far I have been able to hold the balance justly as between the interests of the staff, the public generally, and the taxpayer. If the Post Office is conducted efficiently, and if it meets with the approval of this House, as many kind expressions voiced to-day lead me to believe is the
      2264
      case, the Committee is well aware—and no one is better aware than I am—that the credit is by no means due to the man who happens for the time being to preside over the Department, but is due entirely to the able and devoted staff at the head-quarters of the Department, and in the offices of the Department throughout the country.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not propose, as the Postmaster-General has met so many of the points, to divide, and I would like to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      Mr. MORTON: It appears to me that the Committee ought to have another night to discuss Post Office affairs, and there ought to be no attempt to rush this through. In my opinion, the Post Office ought never to be considered a party business or to be dealt with from a party point of view. We ought to have the fullest opportunity of discussing them, and I want a little more time to get answers to my questions. There appears to me to be a disposition on the part of some hon. Members to think we ought not to discuss matters here or to criticise the Postmaster-General and other officials, or dictate to them. I do not want to dictate at all, but it is undoubtedly not only our right but our duty to criticise all Ministers and officials too if we like.
      And it being Eleven o'clock the Chairman left the chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next (22nd May).
      Adjourned at Six minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Public Trustee (Brokerage).
  Public Trustee (Brokerage).
  National Insurance.
  National Insurance.
  Transfer of Consols.
  Transfer of Consols.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Petty Sessions Clerk (County Derry).
  Petty Sessions Clerk (County Derry).
  Wolfhill (Queen's County) National School.
  Wolfhill (Queen's County) National School.
  Battleship "Audacious."
  Battleship "Audacious."
  Royal Dockyards (Discharges).
  Royal Dockyards (Discharges).
  Admiralty Contracts (Prices).
  Admiralty Contracts (Prices).
  Leinster Regiment (Application for Discharge).
  Leinster Regiment (Application for Discharge).
  Royal Irish Regiment (Matthew Spillane).
  Royal Irish Regiment (Matthew Spillane).
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  Army Cadets.
  Army Cadets.
  Certifying Surveyors.
  Certifying Surveyors.
  Milk Imports.
  Milk Imports.
  Penge Tunnel (South Eastern and Chatham Railway).
  Penge Tunnel (South Eastern and Chatham Railway).
  Howrah Gang Case (India).
  Howrah Gang Case (India).
  Bombay Newspaper Subsidised.
  Bombay Newspaper Subsidised.
  Commonwealth of Australia (Electorate).
  Commonwealth of Australia (Electorate).
  Cotton Cultivation (Egypt).
  Cotton Cultivation (Egypt).
  Payment of Members.
  Payment of Members.
  Dublin Post Office.
  Dublin Post Office.
  Letter Delivery (Limerick).
  Letter Delivery (Limerick).
  Supervising Officers (Post Offices).
  Supervising Officers (Post Offices).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petition for the following Bill:
East Kent Electric Power.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made yesterday discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
EASTERN VALLEY OF MONMOUTHSHIRE SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER.
(Petition for Bill.)
Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bills reported, with Amendments.
WIRRAL WATER BILL. WEST CHESHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
SEAFORTH AND SEFTON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
STAR LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (ALNWICK CORPORATION PAYMENT) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for Tuesday next.
HORNSEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Craven be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Marquess of Bristol; read, and agreed to.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.] PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Bristol be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Derby and that the Marquess of Bristol be Chairman of the Committee; read, and agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXI considered (according to order) and suspended for the sitting of the House on Monday next: Then it was moved, That the adjourned Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading of the House of Lords Reconstitution Bill [H.L.] have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day (The Lord President (V. Morley of Blackburn)); agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

CANADIAN-AMERICAN RECIPROCITY.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE*THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to call attention to the probable effects of the proposed Canadian-American Reciprocity Agreement on the commerce and Imperial relations of the British Empire, and to move for any correspondence or communications with the United States as to the extension to the United Kingdom or any other part of the British Empire of the tariff concessions granted to Canada, or raising the question of the bearing of this Agreement on most-favoured-nation Treaties.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject of my Motion covers a very wide field. I do not propose this afternoon to attempt to cover that field, but to confine my observations to one or two special aspects of it. But before doing so there are two preliminary observations which I should like to make. It is a matter of agreement between all political Parties in this country that we have no concern with the domestic politics of Canada. It is the birthright of the Canadian people within the British Empire to work out their own national salvation, and any criticisms or anxiety that may occur to us do not arise from Canadian matters or from the action of Canadian statesmen in connection with Canadian affairs. But where the action of one part of the Empire has an effect or influence on the United Kingdom or on other parts of the Empire, we have the right, indeed the responsibility, to consider the situation which may have arisen. The second observation I would make is in respect of the United States of America. Here, again, the members of all political Parties in this country are in accord. We have no greater desire than for a permanent friendliness and perfect understanding with the United States of America. But the Americans regard us—it is one of the unfortunate accidents of history—as a foreign country, whereas the Canadians do not, and that exactly explains the difference in our attitude towards Americans and towards Canadians. If I have the privilege of the personal friendship of one of your Lordships who is no relation of mine, it is no derogation to that friendship if I have a still greater concern and interest in all that appertains to my own brother. That exactly is the difference between our feelings towards America and our feelings towards Canada.
I must refer to a remarkable speech made by President Taft only a few days ago. I
578
have the report as published in the Standard, dated New York, April 28, and as I have seen no correction of that report I think I am entitled to regard it as substantially correct. This is what President Taft is reported to have said—
"This is a critical time in the solution of the question of Reciprocity. It is a critical time because unless it is now decided favourably to Reciprocity it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States. The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate
Canada by a Chinese wall from the United States and make her part of an Imperial commercial band reaching from England round the world and back to England again by a system of preferential tariff will derive impetus from the rejection of this Treaty. If we would have Reciprocity we must take it now or give it up for ever."
Later on President Taft said—
"Annexationist talk is bosh. Every one who knows anything about it realises that it is bosh. It should not enter into the consideration of serious men engaged in solving a serious problem."
We all, of course, without the slightest hesitation or reservation, accept what the President says about the cry of annexation, which was raised in Congress by a prominent American politician. Therefore we say absolutely nothing more about that.
But I must say a word about the Chinese wall. That allusion shows a complete misapprehension of the ideas of those in this country who are in favour of Tariff Reform and the policy of Preference. It has never entered our minds, it is no part of our policy, to establish a Chinese wall between any part of the Empire and the United States or any other friendly country. On the contrary, we have always recognised that the exact fiscal needs of the different parts of the Empire differ and will differ, and we have no desire to prevent those parts of the Empire from entering into suitable Agreements with foreign countries any more than we have a desire to prohibit ourselves from doing so. But our contention is that the basis of such Treaties must be, first of all, Preference within the Empire between the different parts of the Empire, and then that each part of the Empire, with its own tariff, should be in a position, as I will describe presently, to make its own particular arrangements with foreign countries. Never have we for a moment desired to see a Chinese wall erected between any part of the Empire and the United States. Indeed, there are only two instances of which I have any recollection that might fairly be described as a Chinese

579
wall in tariffs, and they were associated with the names of Mr. McKinley and Mr. Dingley, and as far as my recollection serves me neither of those was a British statesman.
Before I go on to the special aspects of this Reciprocity Agreement to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention, perhaps you will allow me to remind you that there are, roughly speaking, two classes of trade arrangements which countries make between themselves. In foreign countries trade arrangements are the result either of direct negotiations based upon the tariffs established by those countries, or of such advantages as arise automatically from favoured-nation Treaties. Our country has no such tariffs, and cannot, in consequence, engage in negotiations of that kind. Any advantage, therefore, which we enjoy beyond those arising automatically from Treaties is limited to the benefits which may be incidentally derived from the negotiations of other countries, those negotiations being carried out not in the interests of Great Britain but entirely in their own. That reminder is necessary as an introduction to the remarks that I am going to make. It appears from that that we depend mainly, though perhaps not entirely, on what is called the most-favoured-nation clause in our Treaties. And here it becomes important to remind your Lordships that this great clause—the most-favoured-nation clause—has been interpreted in two ways. One interpretation is that of our own country, followed not only by the whole of the Empire but practically adopted by all the Western nations; and then there is the interpretation which I believe is confined to the United States of America. The interpretation which is placed by Great Britain on most-favoured-nation treatment is as follows—
"Favoured-nation countries—that is, countries which have favoured-nation Treaties—must grant to the United Kingdom every tariff concession which they extend to other countries."
That is a very simple and intelligible interpretation of the clause.
There are many such Treaties, but so far as the Dominions are concerned, or any part of the Empire outside the United Kingdom, these Treaties have been made on a system which has varied at least thrice. Before 1881 neither the Foreign Office nor the Colonial Office consulted any part of the Empire as to whether it wished or did not wish to adhere to a Treaty. They were
580
automatically included in it. But from 1881 until quite recently the system has been different. Clauses were inserted which allowed the self-governing Dominions of the Empire either definitely to adhere to the Treaty or to express their desire not to be included. There was the positive and the negative method, but the result was the same. There was no automatic inclusion of the Dominions in the Treaty; it was left to the self-governing Dominions to decide whether they would or would not be included. But once included they were included in the Treaty for as long as it existed. There was no possibility of, we will say, Australia withdrawing from a Treaty to which she adhered so long as that Treaty
was not denounced by His Majesty's Government. Quite recently a third system has been introduced. I had thought till a day or two ago that the Japanese Treaty recently made was the first example of this new system, but I have been told that a Treaty made with Roumania about three years ago was an earlier example. The system which at any rate obtains in the new Japanese Treaty is this. The Dominions are given, not only the opportunity of adhering or refusing to adhere, but also the opportunity of denouncing their position in the Treaty without involving any action on the part of any other portion of the Empire or of the United Kingdom. I may not be absolutely accurately informed, but I believe there are no fewer than 130 such Treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party, and to 44 of these Treaties the Dominions or Colonies are parties—not always the same Dominions or the same Colonies, but, as it were, in different groups according to their recent decisions to adhere or not to adhere. But the central fact remains, that there are no fewer than 130 of these Treaties which affect the United Kingdom, and of those 44 affect other parts of the Empire in different groups.
If you will be good enough to bear with me and keep these facts in mind, I would ask you to follow me still further in considering the history of this Agreement, which is now being discussed in the Canadian Parliament and in the American Congress. The starting-point of our consideration must be the tariff which Canada adopted only a few years ago. That tariff had three sections—the general tariff, the preferential tariff to the British Empire, and the intermediate tariff. The first thing that occurred after this tariff had been made and

581
the preferential treatment of the British Empire secured under it was a desire on the part of the Dominion Government to conduct negotiations with France for a Treaty of Commerce. And here we come, I think, to what was a new stage, a fresh precedent, in what I may call Dominion diplomacy. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs appointed two Canadian statesmen, Mr. Fielding and Mr. Patterson, plenipotentiaries to negotiate this Treaty of Commerce with France. I make no comment on that fact; I merely note it as a sign-post in the diplomatic experience of the Empire. The Canadian Government wished for certain concessions from the Government of France, and the return they were prepared to make to them was the Canadian intermediate tariff. But the French Government would not accept the Canadian intermediate tariff. They were not prepared to give Canada the concessions she asked for in return only for the Canadian intermediate tariff, and the result was that the Canadian negotiators had to go below the intermediate tariff and give France better terms than that tariff by itself would have given. The first result of the Treaty negotiated on that basis was this, that the Imperial Preference was diminished.
The second result was that Switzerland, which had a most-favoured-nation Agreement with Canada, claimed the same terms for herself under the most-favoured-nation clause as Canada had given to France, and, of course, she got them. Canada had to extend to Switzerland exactly the same concessions that had been given to France; and, of course, from that followed a further inroad on the Imperial Preference. The third result of this Treaty was that Germany was not content that Switzerland should get these concessions and that German trade should remain in the position in which it then was. Germany had not minded the concessions given to France because French trade did not in this respect conflict with German trade in the Canadian market; but directly the Preference was given to Switzerland German commercial interests were affected, and Germany entered into negotiations with Canada. No Treaty has yet been made between Germany and Canada, but a provisional arrangement has been entered into, and that provisional arrangement again, just like the French Treaty and the Swiss Treaty, has resulted in an inroad being made on the margin of Imperial Preference.
But the fourth result was the most important of all. After Germany had made this provisional Agreement the Government of the United States began to move. So far as one who has no access to inner official Papers can form a judgment, it was the action of Germany that finally brought the United States Government into the field, and the United States Government appear to have taken the field, it is fair to say since the declarations of President Taft, with a special direction against British Preference; and the result of America taking the field in these commercial negotiations with Canada is seen in the Canadian-American Reciprocity Agreement which is now being discussed in Canada and at Washington.
I told your Lordships that there were only two aspects of this question which I was going to discuss, and I now come to the first of them. I have already stated that this country has 130 most-favoured-nation Treaties, and that to 44 of those the Dominions and Colonies of the Empire in varying groups were parties. Canada is a party to no fewer than 12 of those Treaties. She is included in the most-favoured-nation Treaties with Austria, Russia, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, the Argentine, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and three others, and also with France in accordance with her own recent Treaty. This is the first time, I believe, in the history of the British Empire that one part of the Empire has obtained better terms from a foreign country in respect of a part of its
commerce than those enjoyed by the United Kingdom or any other part of the Empire. According to the best calculations I have seen, if the Reciprocity Agreement was now in force nearly £3,000,000 worth of British produce would, by the latest figures, be subject to Import Duty, from which if they came from Canada they would in some cases be entirely free, and in others would pay considerably lower duties than would be levied in the case of the United Kingdom. Whatever our views on the fiscal question may be, I do not think there is one of us who will not feel some anxiety in respect of this precedent.
I make no complaint of the action of the Canadian Government. As I said before, it is the position of every one of us that Canada must work our her own salvation without having her elbow jogged by us, without any interference from us or from anybody else. But I do say that it is a

583
precedent at which I cannot express pleasure—that for the first time one of the great Dominions of the Empire should be on the point of receiving different treatment in respect of some of its exports from a foreign country from what similar exports from the United Kingdom or any other part of the Empire would receive. It is a precedent which may be capable of very large extension. Canada has made this Agreement with America. As I will show your Lordships presently, America is very anxious that Canada should make an even more extensive Agreement of the same kind. Canada has the same right to make a similar Agreement with Germany or with any other foreign country, and all the national rights which Canada has and which we freely admit in this respect are rights which are equally shared by Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. If this precedent should be largely followed and each one of our great Dominions, or we ourselves here in the United Kingdom, should have a series of Agreements with foreign countries according to which their or our products received more favourable treatment than the products of other parts of the Empire—well it may be possible to imagine an Empire system of that kind, but all I can say is that it would be a different system from any which we have previously known or contemplated, and not one which I think any of us would regard without some anxiety. I would go further and say without grave anxiety, because, my Lords, the step between receiving and giving is a very short one. If our Dominions get accustomed to receiving better terms than we get from foreign countries, will it be wonderful if in time to come they think it a natural consequence to give better terms to foreign countries than they may be able to give to us or to other parts of the Empire? And if you get a general system of commercial Treaties throughout the Empire under which the Dominions are giving to and receiving from foreign countries different terms from what they are giving to or receiving from the rest of the Empire, I think it will be very difficult to see exactly how the Imperial system is going, to work. Because where commerce steps in diplomacy almost always follows; and I do not envy the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the future if this precedent should be largely followed.
I have already quoted President Taft's speech, but I have another quotation to
584
make from it, and I ask your Lordships' particular attention to these words—
"We tendered the Canadian Commissioners absolute Free Trade in all the products of either country, manufactured or natural, but the Canadian Commissioners did not feel justified in going so far."
We tendered the Canadian Commissioners absolute Free Trade in all the products of either country, manufactured or natural! Now, what did President Taft mean? Supposing the Canadian statesmen and the Canadian Parliament had accepted those terms, that would mean that all products of America would go free into Canada and all products of Canada, manufactured or unmanufactured, would go free into America; but Canada could not give to the United States what she did not give to the British Empire. Therefore all the goods, manufactured or unmanufactured, from the British Empire would go free into Canada, and if they went free into Canada how could they fail to pass into the United States if there was complete free trade in such articles between Canada and the United States? Not only the British Empire but Canada has no fewer than thirteen Treaties with great countries giving them most-favoured-nation treatment, and therefore the free trade that Canada gave to America she would have to give to these thirteen foreign countries as well as to the British Empire. The result would be that all the products of these thirteen countries as well as the products of the British Empire would be passing freely from Canada into the United States. That would mean Free Trade on the part of the United States, not with Canada alone, but with the world. Does anybody suppose that President Taft meant that?
We all know what the American view of a fiscal policy is. It is perfectly clear that President Taft did not mean that. Did he mean that Canada should free herself from the obligations to which I have referred by leaving the British Empire? We know very well that President Taft did not mean that, because he has told us, in words which we accept without any reservation, that the talk about annexation is all bosh. Therefore we are driven back on the alternative that President Taft did not know the conditions under which the trade of Canada was conducted. He did not know the ties which bind Canada with the rest of the world, and he did not know the elements of the diplomatic situation as it affected

585
Canada and the United Kingdom. Is there no blame on the part of His Majesty's Government that he did not so understand? Is not that the natural consequence of His Majesty's Government taking no part in these negotiations? Was not it the duty of His Majesty's Government, not only to have safeguarded the interests of the United Kingdom and the rest of the Empire—and I will come to that point presently—but to see that both parties to these all-important negotiations really understood all that was involved. It may be that we do not do justice to His Majesty's Government. It may be that all these things were present in their mind, that they have taken an active part in these negotiations from the beginning, and that my conclusion is wrong. That is why I move for Papers and for some information as regards the negotiations which have taken place, because up to now, except in so far as answers have been drawn from them in the House of Commons, His Majesty's Government have given us no information whatever on the course of these most important negotiations. You will see that if the United States Government accepted our interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause the difficulty would not arise. We have a most-favoured-nation clause with America. If they accepted our interpretation of the meaning of this clause, automatically the American Government would give us the same terms at they have given to Canada.
And in this connection I must draw your Lordships' attention to a letter from Mr. Harold Cox which appeared in The Times a few days ago. Mr. Cox quotes from our Treaty with America; and these are the words of that Treaty which govern the consideration of this question—
"No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of His Britannic Majesty's territories in Europe…than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country."
According to our interpretation of language we can see no meaning attaching to those words except that put upon them by our own Foreign Office. But I understand that notwithstanding those words the United States Government do not admit, indeed repudiate, the suggestion that they are bound by that Treaty to give our products the same terms that they are giving Canadian products. I understand that
586
they have a formula which may be summed up in the words "Concession for concession." On that point I should like to know what the Foreign Office have to tell us. I have suggested to your Lordships—I believe not unjustly—that throughout the whole of these negotiations our Foreign Office has been extraordinarily supine. At any rate they must have had in mind the claim on behalf of our products for the same treatment as was given to Canadian products. I invite His Majesty's Government to tell us if they can now, or to promise Papers shortly which will put the thing clearly before the country—I invite them in one form or another to tell us what they have done, what action they have taken, how far they have maintained our rights under what seems to us the only possible interpretation of those words, and on what grounds, if any, those claims have been denied. This Agreement between Canada and the United States is not in the form of a Treaty; it is an Agreement which has to be embodied in legislation. Has that technical point any bearing on the question of whether we are or are not entitled to get the benefit of our most-favoured-nation Treaty with the United States?
Before I pass to another aspect of this question, I should like to ask His Majesty's Government what is the opinion of the Board of Trade with regard to the effect on the importation of wheat and the milling industry in this country of this Agreement if it becomes an accomplished fact. I hold in my hand a copy of the Consular Trade Report, dated December 6 last, issued by the Bureau of Trade and Manufactures at Washington—it is the same kind of thing as a Board of Trade circular in this country—and I invite the attention of His Majesty's Government to this paragraph—
"What remedial measures are practicable to protect the interests of the United States against the activities of countries that have entered as rivals for the world's grain market? British importers, to whom, the changing conditions are especially important and who have given much thought to them, are quite unanimous in the belief that measures should be adopted in the United States by which the surplus wheat of Canada should be regulated if not controlled. It is suggested that this may be brought about if Canadian wheat can be handled by the north-western mills of the United States; by them it could be converted into flour and the mixing performed in the United States which is now carried on in the United Kingdom. By this means Canadian wheat would be kept out of the British market without injury to the Canadian farmer, fluctuations in price would be removed

587
American mills would be benefited, the export of flour from the United States increased, and all these advantages would be secured without injury to the American farmer."
The gist of that statement of the American Bureau of Trade and Manufactures is this. They regard it as very important for the American farmer and the American miller that the United States should obtain complete control of the Canadian wheat market, and that all flour now manufactured in Canada or in England should be manufactured in the United States. It is very natural that there should be solicitude in this report for the interests of the American farmer and miller. I am very glad to see that those who wrote it are also concerned for the interests of the Canadian farmer. But where does the British miller or consumer come in? I suggest to his Majesty's Government that a very large question is involved in this, and I invite them to tell the House, either now or by laying Papers on the Table, what their attitude is in this matter.
The second aspect of this question to which I wish particularly to invite your Lordships' attention and on which I invite an explanation from the Government is how Canada and the policy of Canadian statesmen and our policy and interests are really and vitally affected by the fact that we are both parties to a series of most-favoured-nation Treaties which neither of us can denounce without involving the other. I reminded your Lordships that there are no fewer than twelve of these Treaties to which Canada and the United Kingdom are parties. Before considering how these Treaties affect the Canadian position I would discount at once an objection that may be made. It may be said, "Oh, but the trade which these particular countries at present have with Canada is small and insignificant, and therefore we need not consider it." I admit that the trade is inconsiderable, but I have pointed to what this precedent may grow when the consequences of it could not longer be considered insignificant. Nor would the matter be insignificant even now if, as President Taft has suggested, the interchange of goods on a reduced or free basis were enlarged between America and Canada. Therefore in considering this question I submit that it is no answer to say that the volume of trade between these twelve countries and Canada is too small to be a serious item.
If you consider what are the views of the Canadian statesmen, of the whole Canadian people, almost without exception, on the subject of fiscal policy, you will see how, to put it very moderately, extraordinarily inconvenient these twelve most-favoured-nation Treaties must be. Look at the matter from the view, not of a Free Trader in England, but from the view of a Protectionist in Canada. Canada in return for certain concessions makes a Treaty with France. At once there are twelve countries that can claim the same concession without giving any concession in return. Then Canada makes a Treaty with America in return for very valuable concessions, as the Canadian Government believe them to be, and thirteen foreign countries can at once, if they choose, claim from Canada exactly the same concessions without giving anything at all in return. That is all very well for a Free Trade country, but it certainly puts a Protectionist country in a position of extraordinary difficulty. I invite your Lordships to consider that there are only three possible alternatives for the Canadian Government in the matter—alternatives which involve us, and therefore which we have a right to discuss and consider without for one moment impinging on the right, which not one of us for a moment denies, of the Canadian people to follow their own fiscal policy entirely without regard to our opinion. Supposing this Agreement with the United States becomes an accomplished fact, and that Canada elects to give to these thirteen foreign countries, if they claim it, exactly the same treatment as she has given to America. That puts us in no difficulty at all except this—it is not a difficulty but it is a substantial loss—that it at once makes a great fresh inroad on our preferential treatment. It affects that part of our trade very materially. It is not a matter of contention. All parties are agreed that the Preference freely given to us has been very profitable. But, apart from that inroad on the Preference which we and the rest of the Empire now enjoy, it is quite obvious that this process would make a very considerable inroad on the Canadian fiscal system. Canada would be giving, according to her ideas of tariff policy, a great deal for nothing, and at the same time would be making serious drafts upon her reserve of bargaining power in the future; and it would make it almost impossible for the American

589
Government to extend further the advantages which it is prepared to offer to Canada. I cannot too definitely insist upon that point. The more advantages America offers to Canada, the more bricks she throws down off that Chinese wall which was erected by Mr. McKinley and Mr. Dingley between America and Canada, the more difficult will be the Canadian position in respect of these Treaties.
I ask your Lordships to consider the next alternative. Supposing the Canadian Government said to His Majesty's Government, "You see our difficulties. We ask you to denounce these Treaties of Commerce." I would remind you that as long ago as 1892 there was a correspondence between Canada and the United Kingdom on this very subject. In that year both the Senate and the House of Commons in Canada adopted a Memorial to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The Memorial pointed out objections to the system of most-favoured-nation Treaties, suggested the adoption of the principle of reciprocal concessions as between various parts of the British Empire and between the Empire and foreign nations thereby adopting the American view of favoured-nation treatment, and declared that the obligations imposed on Canada by the old Imperial Treaties were objectionable and injurious to Canada in a variety of ways. Therefore as long ago as 1892 the Parliament of Canada was already restive under the application of these most-favoured-nation Treaties. Then in 1897 the Canadian Government actually asked Her Majesty's Government to denounce two Treaties, the German Treaty and the Belgian Treaty, the reason why those Treaties were singled out for denunciation being that they alone contained a special clause making it impossible for the United Kingdom to receive preferential treatment from the Colonies, and Her Majesty's Government, I think—that is my recollection and belief—because of that special clause—and really it is difficult to understand how it ever could have slipped into one of our commercial Treaties—did denounce those two Treaties. That was in 1897.
Before asking you to consider further what would be the effect if His Majesty's Government were to denounce this mass of Treaties to which I have alluded, I would remind you that, unfortunately, although the Treaty with Germany was
590
denounced in 1897, no fresh Treaty has been made with Germany, and I think the reason is significant. I quote from an answer given by Mr. McKinnon Wood in the House of Commons on March 27 last—
"The main difficulty in the way of a satisfactory conclusion of a new Treaty with Germany lay in the divergence of views between the two Governments concerning the right of the Colonies to form special arrangements as between themselves and the Mother Country of which the advantages were not extended to any foreign country."
The German Empire, of course, has the right to take that line if it thinks proper, but it is a significant fact and one we should not forget. The main difficulty in the way of the conclusion of a new Treaty with Germany has been the unwillingness of the German Government to admit the right of the United Kingdom to receive preferential treatment from any of the Dominions.
Now what was the answer that Her Majesty's Government gave to the Canadian Parliament in 1892 when they first became restive under these Treaties? I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting more than a very brief extract from the reply—
"In order to confer on the Dominion complete freedom in its negotiations with foreign Powers it will be necessary to revise very extensively the existing commercial Treaties of the British Empire, and a great break-up of existing commercial relations is involved in the suggestion."
I think that this language certainly does not err on the side of exaggeration. I cannot for a moment contemplate any Government in this country, with our present fiscal system, and with no tariff with which to negotiate, being willing to denounce wholesale these most-favoured-nation Treaties. Such action would lead to something very like commercial chaos. The whole British commercial world would stand aghast at such a suggestion, and it would, if accomplished, lay our commerce open, if any foreign nation chose, to the imposition of their penal tariffs. Therefore I cannot for a single moment contemplate, under existing conditions, this or any other Government being willing to denounce all these Treaties.
Consequently the Canadian people are thrown back necessarily on what I submit is the only final alternative, the only third course open to them—that is, that they should try and make a separate reciprocal Agreement with each one of those countries. Just as their Treaty with France was

591
followed by the Agreement with the United States, so it seems to me that almost the only alternative left to Canada, if any of these most-favoured-nation Treaty countries claim the advantages given to the United States, is that they should endeavour to negotiate with them as they have done with the United States. Every such Treaty only lands the Canadian Government and people in further difficulties, because every advantage they give to any one of these twelve or thirteen countries has to be extended to all the others, and therefore it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the more Treaties of this kind Canada makes the more hopelessly she will find herself fiscally bogged. And if that is true of Canada to-day, it would also be true of Australia, of New Zealand, or of South Africa to-morrow if the time comes—as come it surely will—that their trade is sufficiently valuable to make foreign countries court them and desire to make commercial arrangements with them. If these Dominions find themselves in this what seems to me real and genuine difficulty as regards the formation of fiscal relations with foreign countries, if that is the position, how can we maintain that they are absolutely free to work out their own salvation fiscally as in all other respects?
The most-favoured-nation clause has been vaunted as the sheet anchor of our fiscal system. It seems to me that that anchor is dragging, and that there is real danger of the ship of Empire getting on political rocks which have not been sighted by His Majesty's Government. To us it appears that the solution of this difficulty was remarkably foreseen by Mr. Deakin when, in the Conference of 1907, he urged, and urged very eloquently, that the right system was the establishment of a preferential arrangement within the Empire, and then that on that basis there should be joint Imperial negotiations with foreign countries. That, my Lords, represents our view. We have no responsibility for the danger into which the ship of Empire is drifting. Our policy is a policy of Tariff Reform involving a tariff as a basis from which to negotiate with foreign countries—a preferential tariff within the Empire, and then joint Imperial negotiation with foreign countries from that basis, so that the different needs of each part of the Empire can be adjusted in its relation
592
to foreign countries. That is not the policy of His Majesty's Government. We know that. But I submit to them that the policy of laissez faire is impossible also. This is just one of those situations out of which they cannot get by simply doing nothing. If nothing is done the difficulty only becomes greater for the Dominions and for ourselves; and I have seen no sign in anything that has transpired in the other House of Parliament or in the publications we have had that His Majesty's Government understood in the least what was involved in those negotiations when they began between America and Canada. As far as I have understood, they have taken a pride in an attitude of aloofness. Not only have they said we do not interfere in Canadian matters—an attitude which, in my humble judgment, is absolutely correct, and which we should imitate—but they have not even taken a hand when far more than Canadian interests, when the trade and manufactures of the United Kingdom and the whole fiscal relations of the Empire, were concerned. They have stood still, and have given no proof up to now that they have in the least realised all that was involved.
I submit I have proved that the situation is a serious one. I think I have proved that the precedent which has been set is one which we cannot regard without anxiety. I submit I have proved that the Government cannot extricate themselves from the difficulty simply by doing nothing. I ask them to tell us what they are going to do. I invite them to tell it us now so far as they can. Of course, I know the difficulties of foreign negotiations, and if they tell us that there are certain things going on now which they cannot disclose, the responsibility must rest on them. But I do press them to promise us at the earliest possible moment to lay Papers before Parliament giving the fullest account of all negotiations that have taken place, and telling us, not only of official negotiations, but of communications which have passed between them and the Dominion or the American Government in relation to this very involved problem.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for any correspondence or communications with the United States as to the extension to the United Kingdom or any other part of the British Empire of the tariff concessions

593
granted to Canada, or raising the question of the bearing of the Canadian-American Reciprocity Agreement on most-favoured-nation Treaties.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I would like to express, if I may, our gratitude to the noble Earl who has just made this Motion for the manner in which he has dealt with the question. I know that the position would be a difficult one to a less experienced speaker than himself to express his views as fully and as plainly as he has expressed them without offending the susceptibilities of either of the great Dominions or nations concerned, or making it in any way difficult for the Government to play the part it is playing in these matters. I can only say that nothing the noble Earl has said has created any difficulty of that kind, and I should like to express our gratitude to him for that.
In considering this question we have to consider, first, the particular question of fact, and, secondly, the general question of policy. The noble Earl did not devote much of his speech to the particular facts of this question. As to the figures which the case involves, I will give them in as short and condensed a form as I can. I must give them because they are very germane to the discussion. What we are discussing is the way in which this proposed Agreement may or may not affect generally the trade of this country and the trade of the Empire. In order to be able to discuss that we have to consider what the actual effect, so far as we see it at the present moment, is likely to be, and first of all how this Agreement, if it comes into being, may affect the trade of this country with Canada. Our total exports to Canada practically amount to £20,000,000 annually. Of that £20,000,000 the goods dealt with under the Agreement amount to £969,000, of which, however, £176,000 are free to all nations. We should retain a substantial preference on trade amounting to £477,000, leaving only £316,000, or 1½per cent. of the total, on which our preference is annulled; so that so far as that is concerned it is quite obvious that no case can be made as to the disastrous effect on the export trade of this country to Canada that is likely to be produced by this Agreement.
594
As to our exports to the United States, our total exports in the year 1908–9 were £43,500,000. The goods affected by the Agreement amount only to a little under £3,750,000, but those figures are misleading in this sense, that a great part of that amount represents goods in which Canada does not in the slightest degree compete with us. The two best instances of that are cutlery, of which Canada exports to the United States only £75 worth, and tinplates, of which we have a very large export and Canada an entirely negligible one. Therefore we may say that on the whole the advantages which Canada will reap relate mainly to articles in which the United. Kingdom is not a competitor. I have given those figures in order to show what you may call the material damage to the trade of this country that might ensue, even supposing our existing trade to be destroyed by the effect of the preference, which is a very doubtful and debatable point. But supposing for a moment you admitted it, the damage to our trade is bound to be very slight indeed.
The noble Earl raised the question of other Treaties that may be affected. The best answer with regard to that is the answer which was given by Mr. Fielding in the House of Commons in Canada on February 16 last, in which he said—
"France is a favoured-nation country to a limited extent, that is to say, as respects the lists of articles specified in Schedules B and C to the French Treaty. Twelve countries: Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Venezuela are accorded most-favoured-nation treatment generally. These are consequently enjoying the benefits of the French Treaty. As respects the dutiable schedules in the Agreement with the United States, the concessions to be granted to the United States are largely the same as already have been granted to France and the favoured-nation countries—
I would ask your Lordships to notice that—
"As respects a large part of the list, therefore, no additional advantage will be enjoyed by such countries. There are, however, a few articles in the French schedules which in the Agreement with the United States are made free or dutiable at lower rates. In these cases the advantages granted to the United States will extend also to France and the favoured-nation countries. In the case of a few articles which are not to be found in the French Treaty the favoured-nation countries will be entitled to receive the concessions on the same terms as the United States, but France will not be so entitled."
I think it is quite plain from that that the aspect of the question as to how this will

595
affect existing Treaties, to which the noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech, has by no means escaped notice by the Government at Ottawa. It is also perfectly obvious that the difficulties which the noble Earl painted when they come in fact to be considered are by no means so considerable as he would have us believe.
There is a point in this on which we on this side and the noble Earl and those who believe with him will never be agreed. The noble Earl spoke of the possible breaking down of Treaties of this kind, and seemed to think that whenever there was a possibility of a tariff wall crumbling, that was to be considered, if not disastrous, at any rate dangerous. We can never take that view. One of the
things which we consider most admirable about the present negotiations is that we foresee not only to a certain extent a breaking down of the tariffs of the two countries concerned, but a wider effect outside. There is at any rate a possibility, and we consider a very hopeful probability, of other tariffs being broken down. If that comes about, we would not consider it either a danger or a disaster. We consider it a consummation most devoutly to be hoped for. The noble Earl has spoken of this general question as if he regarded it as constituting a danger. If it is, as he considers it, something against which you must take precautions, what one would like to ask is, "How are you going to prevent it?" The noble Earl, although he dwelt on the possible dangers which he alleged might result from it, gave us no indication as to how the alleged dangers were to be dealt with.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said our policy was joint Imperial negotiation.
LORD LUCAS: I will come to that point in a moment. I thank the noble Earl for reminding me of it. Let us consider how you are going to meet this particular case with any policy of that sort. Is it suggested that you should attempt to forbid Canada to conclude this arrangement, which is entirely within her present statutory rights? That is one possible policy, but it is a policy that I think nobody would consider. Are you going to put obstacles, diplomatic or otherwise, in the way of the negotiations? Are you going to try, by whatever means
596
come best, to impede them? The only and inevitable result of that would be to revive the demand, of which I am glad to say we have heard little for a considerable time, that the greater Dominions should have separate diplomatic representation. The only remaining course is to offer inducements of a financial nature to Canada which she would find more profitable than those now being offered to her by the United States. Is such a thing possible? Can the United Kingdom ever offer to Canada the advantages which the United States can offer? I do not think so. You have only to consider the laws of nature, the laws of geography, and the statistics of production of the two countries to realise that Canada and the United States are, in matters of trade, complementary one to the other in a degree in which Canada and this country never can be. If any proof of that was required you have it in the figures which I have just given to your Lordships. The Agreement, by common consent, covers most of the products either of the soil or of trade. It embraces the standard industries of both countries, and it includes the mutual requirements of both countries. With regard to those very articles on which this Agreement is based this country takes a very small share, as I have shown from the figures, and it is quite obvious, looking at the figures, that this country can never be complementary to Canada in anything like the degree that the United States can. You have only to consider what has been the history of the two countries and the history of the negotiations that are going on, to see, in the words which Mr. Fielding used in his letter to the High Commissioner, that in making this Agreement Canada is realising what have been the desires of her people for half a century. As I say, Canada can supply to the United States what the United States wants, and the United States can supply to Canada what Canada wants, and the fact of geographical proximity and great similarity of condition is bound to make trade with the United States more satisfactory than trade turned artificially in any other direction.
The question which, after all, is at the bottom of the whole of this discussion, and that upon which the points of view of the noble Earl's Party and of the Government differ, is whether Reciprocity with the United States and Preference to the United Kingdom are or are not mutually

597
exclusive. We think it would be exceedingly dangerous if these two things were mutually exclusive; but neither we nor the Canadian Government think that they should be so. I can quote to your Lordships the views which have been expressed by Canadian Ministers on that question. Sir Richard Cartwright, speaking at Toronto on the fiscal situation on December 11, 1903, said—
"I have advocated the formation of a friendly alliance by any possible means between Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. With that view I advocated Reciprocity with the United States. Largely with that view I have advocated the British Preference."
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking of the Agreement on March 7 last, said—
"Surely in no way at all can it affect our trade with Britain. The United States can enter our market with their natural products, but it is certain that England will never send a bushel of any kind of grain to Canada. However, England can give us a preference in her market for our natural products if she chooses to change her policy, and then we are prepared to give her upon her manufactured products a corresponding advantage. The policy of Canada is just the same as it was three months ago when this arrangement was made; nay, it is the same to-day as it has been for the last twelve years, and it will be the policy of the Canadian Government at the next imperial Conference which will open in May next."
Then Mr. Fielding, speaking on January 26, said—
"This instrument, deals with duties on goods from the United States, but we would have to look over our tariff and see how it affected the British Preference at any given point, and if we see fit to grant Great Britain a larger preference than would remain it is absolutely within the right of this Parliament of Canada to fix that preference at whatever we think is a proper rate."
We are grateful for the preference that Canada, has given us in the past, and we are equally grateful for the promise of its continuance in the future. But here we come to the point on which, as I say, we are divided—the question of what the noble Earl called early in his speech a Chinese wall around the Empire.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It was not my word.
LORD LUCAS: Well, the idea expressed in the words Chinese wall. The system of Reciprocity with the United States and Preference given by Canada to us does not commend itself to the Protectionists of this country. The noble Earl suggests, as an alternative to the present system of things, the policy which Mr. Deakin put
598
forward—that you should have Imperial negotiations before you conclude these kind of tariffs. Is the noble Earl really prepared to come forward at the present time and say to these Dominions, to whom you have deliberately given by statutory right the power to make their own arrangements, that we are going to take that power away from them and substitute in its place the power of having a small minority share only in the negotiation of these Treaties in the future? What is going to be the result of that? I do not believe that in these matters, particularly in Imperial matters, you can at this stage put the hands of the clock back. You have given these powers, for better or for worse—we are convinced that they are given for better—and I do not believe that any Government, by any means you can conceive, could take away the power of individual negotiation which the Dominions now possess and substitute for it simply the power of joint negotiation. What would be the result? As a result of that, the Dominions would lose their exclusive power of following their best and truest interests.
If you try to exclude any form of Reciprocity outside the Empire in order to establish more firmly your system of Preference within, what will be the result? Take this concrete case. There undoubtedly are at the present moment in Canada a large number of people who will be gainers by this Reciprocity Treaty; they may, or may not, be gainers by any system of Imperial Preference. You are bound to have at any rate a number of people—it may be more or it may be less—who would consider that they would have been greater gainers had they been allowed to negotiate the Treaty of Reciprocity with the United States. The result, therefore, of any attempt to exclude Reciprocity would be that whereas you have at the present moment the whole of Canada and the whole of both Parties unanimous in favour of Preference—that is a point which is never even debated in Canada, because everybody is in favour of it—you would have a discontented body of people saying that the price they had to pay for being Imperialists was that they were losing so many cents or whatever it might be a bushel on their wheat. If the United States wants Canadian wheat, can you prevent her having it? Can you prevent the United States taking off the present duty which she puts on wheat if

599
she wants Canadian hard wheat in her mills? You are powerless to prevent that. I would like to know whether Protectionists in this country seriously contemplate trying to compete with the United States in the matter of tariffs to anything like the same degree or height that she herself thinks it fit to impose. Are you, for instance, going to put a 2¼ dollars tax on corn, as she does, in order to compete for Canadian wheat? It seems to me that the lines on which the noble Earl argued this question are lines on which it is impossible to have a successful Empire, and on which it is still more impossible to have an Empire in which you will not have a larger or smaller section feeling that they are being made to bear burdens because they are members of the Empire.
We believe that the true policy is to allow the component parts of the Empire to seek their own prosperity in whatever way they think best. After all, the thing that will foster British trade in Canada far more than the £360,000 worth of that trade that may be now, perhaps, in a rather less good position with regard to American competition than it was before, will be the rapid development of Canada. If Canada in her wisdom considers that more rapid prosperity is going to be achieved by her through negotiating this Reciprocity Agreement, that will automatically do far more for British trade than we could possibly lose under this Agreement; and, in the second place, I say that when a Dominion has deliberately made up its mind to pursue a course of that kind, there is one thing and one thing only which this country ought to do, and that is give Canada a fair field and no interference whatsoever in trying to achieve her object. The noble Earl says that the Government have stood aloof in this matter. What would he have liked the Government to do? Would he have liked the Government to
interfere; and, if so, in what way? We know, from the speech which Sir Edward Grey made on this subject in the House of Commons a short time ago, that Mr. Bryce has shown the greatest keenness to assist the Canadian delegates in every way he possibly could. When the noble Earl says that the Government have stood aloof, would he have liked Mr. Bryce to interfere with the Canadian delegates, and, by pressing side by side with what the Canadian delegates were asking for the claims of this country, make the Agreement impossible of attainment?
600
because that is the only alternative. In a matter of this kind you can either help the delegates of the Dominion concerned to get what they want, or you can interfere with them, and by pressing the claims of this country I think you could easily prevent the thing from being brought to fruition.
Now, my Lords, I come to the point to which the noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech—the interpretation that is to be placed on the most-favoured-nation clause that exists in our Convention with the United States. The noble Earl quoted that part of Article II of the Convention of Commerce between Great Britain and the United States of America in the year 1815 which deals with what we now call the most-favoured-nation clause, and from that he assumed that we had an absolute right to most-favoured-nation treatment. I suggest for the consideration of the noble Earl the actual words in that sentence. I think your Lordships will agree that the matter is not necessarily quite so simple as is made out, and does not bear, as the noble Earl says, only one possible interpretation. The words are "any other foreign country." I do not know that we could say unhesitatingly that with regard to this country Canada is any other foreign country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would submit that it is any other foreign country in respect to the United States.
LORD LUCAS: I am only submitting this point. I am not by any means laying it down as a definite fact, but it seems that there are difficulties in the way which the noble Earl has to a certain extent slurred over. I think the noble Earl would find a great many lawyers who would say that the words "any other foreign country" relate to States other than the two contracting States. Therefore I say the matter is not an easy one, but is fraught with considerable difficulties. We do not agree with the grounds on which the noble Earl bases his claim. But we do agree with him in so far that we think we have the right to be treated in the same manner as Canada is treated, but at the present moment, as I have said, it is our emphatic policy that Canada should be given a fair field and no interference whatsoever in her efforts to obtain what she desires.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting him, but the point is so important that there ought to be

601
no ambiguity about it. Do I understand that the contention of the United States is that we do not come in under that Treaty because Canada is not a foreign country according to the text of that Article? It is a very important point.
LORD LUCAS: I have not said so, and I should be sorry to say so at the present time. I am merely saying that that is a very possible and a very probable interpretation which may be put upon the words by the United States.
THE EARL OF CROMER: It is one that the Foreign Office do not accept, I understand.
LORD LUCAS: The Foreign Office have never accepted the American reading of most-favoured-nation Treaties. In pursuance of our policy—and I think the noble Earl will find his Question answered in what I am going to say—we are at the present moment watching the situation. We are of opinion that our position will not be prejudiced in the slightest degree by waiting, nor by the Agreement that may be concluded between Canada and the United States. I would only like to say one further word with regard to that. If the United States were to grant to some third State the advantage they are prepared to concede to Canada His Majesty's Government would at once be in a position to claim the same concession under the Convention of 1815, but it is only fair to point out that the State Department at Washington has replied to Press inquiries that they have not any intention of admitting the claim of any Power to the same concessions that they are prepared to give to Canada.
I have answered to the best of my ability the Questions the noble Earl has put. I can only say that his speech has revealed a difference between us which will not, and I do not think ever can, be bridged over in this matter. It is a difference which goes to the very roots of Imperial policy. Cloak it as you may, disguise it as you like, there is no question about it that the noble Earl would like in some form or another to take away from the Dominions the rights they at present enjoy and which they have exercised for a good many years of controlling the commercial arrangements which they may make with other Powers—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I never said so.
LORD LUCAS: I know the noble Earl did not say so in so many words, but I do not think any one listening to his speech could put any other interpretation upon it. He did go so far as to say that he was a deliberate advocate of a policy by which the initiation of every Dominion was to be taken away.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. By free consent Mr. Deakin made the proposals, and I accepted them.
LORD LUCAS: It may be by free consent or it may not, but the fact remains that the policy to which the noble Earl adheres—of course, we all know it is a policy which can never be forced down the throats of the Dominions—is that they shall give up the powers which they at present hold for making their own commercial arrangements. We believe, in the first place, that it is not the right thing to do, and, in the second place, that by no such policy as that can the individual, component parts of the Empire achieve their true commercial prosperity. As long as we debate the matter on those lines, I am afraid we shall never come anywhere near agreement. In our belief, the power as it was freely given should be freely used, and it is on those lines that we are watching the present negotiations that are going on between Canada and the United States.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Are there any Papers that the noble Lord is able to lay on the Table?
LORD LUCAS: As I explained in my speech, there are no Papers, and therefore they cannot be laid on the Table of the House.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Can the noble Lord hold out any hope of there being Papers before long?
LORD LUCAS: The noble Earl moves for "any correspondence or communications with the United States as to the extension to the United Kingdom or any other part of the British Empire of the tariff concessions granted to Canada." I can only say, with regard to that, that there have been no communications with the United States, and therefore we cannot, I am afraid, lay Papers.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not know whether in any quarter of the country it may be represented that this debate is an infringement of the rights of self-government in one of our greatest Dominions. In my view to hold such an opinion, that full and frank discussion on a subject of such vital importance not only to Canada but to this country and the Empire is wrong, is not only unsound but extremely dangerous. I go further and say that that policy is extremely unpopular in Canada. It was constantly represented to me when I was there that in many cases Canada was treated, if I may say so, rather like a young man whose relations refuse to believe that he has grown up. They pat him on the head and call him a good lad, and still continue to treat him as a child. Surely Canada is past that, and has now arrived at a stage when we can indulge in a full and frank discussion on matters which vitally affect not only these two countries but the whole of the rest of the Empire. If two friends find that the time has arrived when they can no longer discuss things fully and frankly between themselves surely that is the sign of the end of their absolute friendship? They may keep up acquaintanceship, but that friendship, the proof of which is frank discussion on matters affecting them both, is gone. I venture to think the same holds good between this country and the rest of the Empire. If it be true that the ties which bind the Empire together are as light as air but strong as links of iron, then a discussion on a matter which affects the Empire and its whole foreign policy as strongly as this proposal does, must of necessity be not only a prerogative of friendship but a duty.
The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government was asked, "What are the Government doing?" and so far as I could understand him he held up his hands and said, "What could the Government do?" He practically endeavoured to get out of his dilemma by asking that question, and then went on to deal with what he called facts. He stated, for instance, that the cutlery and tinplate trade of Canada was so infinitesimal that it really was not worth considering. I venture to think that was rather an unfortunate instance to take, because I understand that the steel trade and the iron trade of Canada are the two trades which are progressing more rapidly and in every way more widely than any other trade in the Dominion. If it is a fact that at the
604
present moment those two items, cutlery and tinplates, are but small and not worth considering in the Reciprocity proposal, may not the time arrive when they will become great and flourishing industries and be tremendous competitors with ourselves in the markets of the United States? If it is merely a question as to the amount of the trade, then there must arrive a moment when that amount becomes serious. But the point with which we have to deal to-night is not the question of amount but the question of principle.
Then the noble Lord asked, amongst other questions, "Can the United Kingdom offer to Canada as much as the United States?" It is not a question of the United Kingdom offering to Canada; it is a question of the British Empire; and the British Empire, I have always been given to understand, has the greatest markets of any country in the world. It includes not only one-fifth of the area of the globe, but also one-fifth of its population; and if the noble Lord asks whether the British Empire can supply as great a market to Canada as the United States can, I not only reply unhesitatingly in the affirmative but I add that it can supply an infinitely greater one. Then the noble Lord said that a Reciprocity arrangement between the United States and Canada was complementary to Preference to this country. It is perfectly true that that may be so; but the question arises, which is to be complementary to the other. If our Preference is to be complementary to an arrangement with the United States, that is a very different thing from the United States arrangement being complementary to the British Preference. We on this side of the House believe that the United States should come second to this country and the rest of the Empire, and that, to my mind, is the vital difference which divides the two Parties in this House.
The noble Lord went on to ask, Did we propose to dictate terms to Canada? I thought that the question of dictating terms to the great Dominions had been exploded in the eighteenth century. But now we have gone to the other extreme and refuse to make any criticism of any sort or kind. I believe the one policy is as antiquated as the other, and that the time has arrived when we should discuss fully and frankly this Reciprocity proposal. There is a possibility that we may have to dictate to Canada, but that possibility will

605
only arise if we follow the lead which apparently is to be given to us by His Majesty's Government. You have almost done so to-night by stating that you would be glad to have Free Trade with Canada and the rest of the world, and you possibly hope that such an arrangement may follow. When we come to the question of most-favoured-nation clauses, if this country takes up the stand that it is impossible to release Canada from this engagement, then at any rate you arrive at a dilemma from which you can only escape in one of two ways—either by dictating Free Trade to Canada, or by making new arrangements throughout the rest of the world.
Reference was made by the noble Earl to a speech by President Taft, in which he spoke of a Chinese wall. I venture to think the speech of the President of the United States was a curious one, and coming from the quarter which it did it is still more curious. I am distinctly under the impression that there is a very high tax imposed on every passenger who travels from the Hawaiian Islands to an American port in anything but an American ship. The President of the United States omitted to mention that. I believe the tax is 100 dollars. That is a greater Chinese wall than anything that has ever been proposed by the wildest Tariff Reformer in this country. Another thing the President omitted to mention was the proposals to link up the Philippines still closer with the American people and practically to wipe out all foreign firms and destroy their trade. Those proposals were on foot when I was there two years ago, and they may have been carried into effect since. I believe I am correct in saying they have not been withdrawn, and are at any rate still in the air. If they are going to deal in that way with the Hawaiian and Philippine Islands and drive out all other competing peoples, that surely is a Chinese wall if ever there was one. I can only imagine that because the President of the United States happens to live in what is called a White House he spoke on the assumption that he was entitled to throw stones.
Then we are sometimes told of the "bogey of annexation." I am not going to give an opinion on that subject one way or the other, but I will quote one who will be treated as an authority, I venture to think, by both sides of this House, and although we on this side do not perhaps agree with him as fully as noble Lords
606
opposite, we realise, at any rate, that no one can speak with more authority on the subject of the American people than the present British Ambassador at Washington. In his book which has gone through many editions, "The American Commonwealth," we still find this statement in the very last edition—
"The material growth of Canada would probably be quickened by union" (with the United States) "and the plan of a Commercial League or Customs Union which has lately been discussed, might, if carried out, lead to a political union; indeed, it is hard to see how otherwise Canada could have her fair share in adjusting such tariff changes as might from time to time become necessary."
It is perfectly true that the present Reciprocity arrangement does not preclude Free Trade with Canada, and therefore perhaps one may say that it is not a question which affects us at the present moment. But at any rate it does affect the trade of the two countries intimately, and extends to a very large proportion of the whole of the imports of those two countries.
I, too, must follow the noble Lord into figures. I give these figures, not so much as questions of fact, but as showing the principles that are involved. A writer in the Quarterly Review this month gives the following figures with regard to the changes that are effected by this tariff. This proposal will place a further 9·19 per cent. of American imports into Canada on the free list, and reduce the duties on 10·82 per cent. In other words, the Agreement affects more than 20 per cent. of the imports from the United States into Canada, and as already 44·36 per cent. are free, we find that America will get a total of 53 per cent. of her imports into Canada put on the free list altogether. As the United States already holds over 59 per cent. of Canadian imports as compared with our 25·3 per cent., it is obvious that we have to consider that in all seriousness. Sir Wilfred Laurier, speaking of the relations between this country and Canada made this remark—
"If we do not draw closer together we must inevitably drift apart."
That is a question the noble Lord opposite will have to consider—namely, whether this Reciprocity proposal—I hope it will never be an Agreement—is likely to draw Canada and the United Kingdom closer together, or whether the reverse will not more probably be the case. Then as to the imports into

607
the United States from Canada. There we find that 40·67 per cent. are put upon the free list by this proposal, and a further 7·68 per cent. get a reduction in duty. In other words, 48·35 per cent. of Canada's imports into the United States are affected by the proposed Agreement. As 46·78 per cent. of her imports are already free, and it is proposed to make free a further 40·67 per cent., only 12·55 per cent. of Canada's imports into the United States will remain subject to duty once the Agreement is in force.
There arises at once the question whether Canada or the United States can give similar and equal advantages to this country and to the rest of the British Empire and also to those countries bound to Canada by most-favoured-nation Treaties. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out that the interpretation in the United States of most-favoured-nation Treaties is entirely different from our own. I could not follow altogether what the noble Lord opposite really intended by his reference to that point. As far as I could understand, he thought that we still had a chance of getting the interpretation altered by the United States. I venture to think that that is a hopeless contingency. It has been for many years the policy of the United States that concessions should only be given to those countries that were prepared to give a quid pro quo. That policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in the year 1887, and quite recently another case came before the Customs Court of Appeal. A British firm found that it was being taxed 9s. 4d. a gallon on British whisky, as against 7s. levied on the French product. The British firm appealed against the higher tax as being contrary to the interpretation of the most-favoured-nation arrangement, and in giving judgment the United States Court of Appeal said this—
"If this country" [the United States] "should concede to Great Britain without consideration what it has conceded to France for a consideration, it would not be conceding to England the favour it had conceded the other country, but would be conceding to England more than it had conceded to the other country, because England in such a case, gives no consideration for which France gave a consideration. The extension of the 7s. rate (on whisky) to England without a mutual concession would be conceding something more than that which was conceded to France. Therefore, it cannot be within the purview of the most-favoured-nation clause of the Treaty."
I venture to think you could not have a more definite statement as to the interpretation
608
of the most-favoured-nation clause in America than has been set forth in that judgment.
What will happen? Unless the United States is prepared to reverse her interpretation of the most-favoured-nation Treaties Canada will receive a preference, as the noble Lord himself acknowledged, which the rest of the Empire will not get in the United States markets. Then comes a question of what will happen in Canada. I am one of those—and I think there are many in this House—who have never been able to understand what principle underlies the policy of His Majesty's Government. It is certainly not the policy, as it used to be in old days, of laissez faire and laissez aller. It is quite true that they follow the policy of laissez faire with regard to the composition of this House, but that is not the policy they adopt with regard, to its powers. It is quite true that it is the policy they adopt with regard to the products of labour, but it is not the policy they adopt, and rightly, with regard to the conditions under which labour itself exists. Which is to be their policy on this occasion? Is it to be a policy of laissez faire? We have no answer from the noble Lord opposite except that of "Wait and see." Let us see what will happen. If Canada signs this Agreement twelve nations, as the noble Earl has pointed out, will claim similar advantages to those which Canada is prepared to give to the United States. It is perfectly true that the trade is not very considerable, but Canada has to consider the question of principle and whether she is going to adopt our interpretation of the most-favoured-nation Treaties or that of the United States. We all know that Germany is prepared to make a similar arrangement with Canada if possible, and it is obvious that Canada in that case might desire to have her hands free from all the engagements we made with her in earlier days.
What is to be the policy of His Majesty's Government? Are they going to wait until this Agreement is signed and then find themselves in the position of saying to Canada, "Yes, we quite see that you should be released from these arrangements, and we shall have to undertake the policy of making new arrangements with the whole of these twelve countries." As the noble Earl has pointed out, it is fourteen years since the Treaty with Germany was brought to a conclusion, and we have failed to make another one yet. Is it to be hoped that we

609
shall be any more successful with these other twelve countries than we have been with Germany? Supposing this country says, "No, we cannot release you from the most-favoured-nation Treaties," then it comes to this, that this is a policy of dictating. You will have to say, "You must have Free Trade with these other countries; we dictate Free Trade terms." Canada can reply, "We cannot accept that position," and Canada must then reconsider her position in the British Empire. That is what the policy of drift is bound to lead us to, and the reason the noble Earl put this Notion on the Paper is to discover what the Policy is, if they have one, of His Majesty's Government, and at any rate to see that something shall be done before matters arrive at a point when any action is too late, and when we shall have arrived at a situation as dangerous as it is unsatisfactory and unpleasant both to Canada and to ourselves.
I am one of those who believe most implicitly in the destinies of Canada. I believe in a fair field and no favour. To say that a fair field and no favour is what is offered by His Majesty's Government is certainly not the description I should give of it. Canada has not got a fair field in this country. She has made offers to us which have not been accepted, and the way in which those offers were met will, I think, go down to history as an example to be avoided. I venture to hope that no such phrase as has been used on the last occasion will be used at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. The noble Lord opposite ended by saying, "It is all very well, but what are you going to do? Are you going to refuse to allow Canada to sign this Agreement with the United States?" It is not, as we have stated again and again, for the Opposition to frame a policy for the Government. We have a policy, and I think noble Lords opposite realise what it is. Our policy is that we should be able to offer better terms to Canada, as we can do, than any other country in the world; and if we did offer those terms there would then be no need for a Reciprocity Agreement with the United States, and the whole of the questions raised by this Agreement would naturally fall to the ground. Sir Wilfred Laurier has himself publicly stated in Canada that he is prepared to renew those proposals. It is for His Majestys' Government to decide whether they will again bang and, bolt and bar the door against them
610
and allow the policy of drift to go on until they find themselves face to face with a situation in which drift and laissez faire are no longer possible.
LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, I feel that an apology is due from one who has been so short a time a member of this House for rising to take part in this debate. But though I have been in your Lordships' House only a short time, I have spent seven years of my life in two of our largest Dominions. I had the honour of serving in Australia for four years under a distinguished member of this House, who I am sorry to see is not here to-night. I welcomed this Motion of the noble Earl very warmly when I saw it on the Paper. I was in Australia at the time, and the one thing you heard on all sides after the Conference was the regret and disappointment felt at the I do not like to say want of sympathy, but want of action on the part of His Majesty's Government. I therefore welcomed very warmly the noble Earl's effort to get some information from the Government as to what their policy is.
The noble Lord who spoke from the other side made use of the word "interfere" several times. That is a word that I do not think ought to be used at all. It is an absolutely unnecessary one. No one, I think welcomes more than our—I would like to use the word—brothers in the Colonies full light and full information with regard to all the actions of the Government. We are rather in the position of a large commercial house with branches all over the world, and I do not think that the word interference can be used when the head of the house makes arrangements or business terms with the branches outside. That, my Lords, seems to me what the policy of the Government should be—to so arrange affairs with the Colonies that there could be no question of these Treaties coming up. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary asked what would we have them do? I would like to see a continuous policy laid down dealing with all these matters. The noble Lord said that at present he thought there was no danger of any interference with our trade by any Agreement that might be made. But I like to look into the future. The trade is not going to stand still. Any one who knows our Colonies and has visited them will say without hesitation that it is impossible to quite forecast the enormous expansion of trade and prosperity in the Colonies, and little though these Agreements

611
may affect us now I venture to say it will be a very different story in the future. We have heard the expression "Chinese wall." The wall of tariffs may be broken down between America and Canada, but what I am most anxious to see is that there should not be a large wall built all round England preventing everything that we must desire coming in; and I fail to see, if the Colonies are making Agreements all over the world, where we shall come in when we have no terms and no Agreements to offer on our part. The noble Earl strove to extract from the noble Lord opposite some definition of the Government's policy, and it was with feelings of great regret that I listened to the reply of the noble Lord, because I cannot say he threw the smallest light on the subject. I feel most deeply that full and free discussion of the policy of the Government of this country is welcomed very warmly by the Colonies, and that is why I regret that so far the Government are unable to give us any indication of their policy, or any information in the shape of Papers.
LORD WELBY: My Lords, the only conclusion I can come to from the speeches of noble Lords opposite is that much regret is felt that His Majesty's Government have not taken such steps as would practically have put an end to this Reciprocity Agreement being carried forward. I would like to ask the noble Earl whether he has seriously looked back upon the history of this question. Reciprocity has been, I might almost call it, the dream of Canada for sixty years. It is over sixty years since a wise statesman, then Governor-General of Canada, warned the Government of the day that if Canada was to be kept as part of the Empire it would be absolutely necessary to grant her Reciprocity with the United States. Over and over again in Despatches he dwelt on that important point. If that is the case; if Canada, now having the opportunity, is really anxious for Reciprocity; and if, as we learn, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, her Prime Minister, is prepared to carry this Agreement through at all hazards or fall with it—I ask the noble Earl whether he thinks he is going to add to the loyalty of Canada or to the stability of the Empire by throwing himself athwart the wishes of that great Dominion.
The noble Earl, if I may say so, raised some questions which I think are not at all real questions. He portrayed Canada receiving the manufactured goods of the
612
United States free of all duty, while the tariff remained in force against us. When he paints that picture he overlooks the fact that Canada is at present Protectionist to the backbone; she refused Mr. Taft's offer suggesting greater freedom for manufactures, and as far as we can judge there is no symptom whatever of her intention to depart from the policy of Protection on her manufactured goods. Let me give one fact to show how devoted Canada is to the principle of Protection. Some years ago she gave us a preference of 33½ per cent. on the duties on our woollen manufactures. Before very long the woollen manufacturers of Canada rose against this tremendous concession to us, and the Canadian Minister, Mr. Fielding—this is only three or four years ago—yielded to the pressure put upon him, and the preference was reduced to, I think, 14 per cent. That will show your Lordships that Canada has no intention at present to carry out such an Agreement with the United States as that which the noble Earl raised up in order to frighten us.
I should like to ask whether the effect of Preference in Canada generally has been of any very great moment to us—except in this regard, that I look upon it as a very valuable proof of the goodwill of Canada to us and to the Empire. But as far as any actual benefit to us is concerned, I think it would be very difficult to show it from figures. If you look at the figures ranging over the whole period from 1897, the beginning of Preference, up to 1909, you will see that on the import of dutiable goods it very slightly increased from a proportion of 30½ to 31½, which is not a very large advance. On the other hand, to be quite fair, the import of free goods from this country fell. I think it is fair to say that Preference probably rested on what was then a falling import from us, whilst in the case of the United States, who had no Preference at all, their imports, both dutiable and free, show a considerable increase. Looking at that fact I come to the conclusion that the contiguity of the two great countries, the absolute necessity in their own interests to exchange their products, makes it impossible for Canada not to avail herself largely of American produce. You might carry it further. I will give you the instance of metals, one of the most important things that have been mentioned. The duty-paying metals imported into Canada by us increased in those thirteen years by about fourfold, and we

613
enjoyed a certain preference. From the United States they increased sixfold. That appears to me to show beyond all question of doubt that it is so much in the interests of Canada to deal with her neighbour close hand that we cannot really rival the United States in the matter.
I feel very great difficulty in knowing what the noble Earl opposite would have done. It appears to me that if he had had his way he would have interfered earlier in the course of these negotiations with a view of bringing up a variety of very dangerous subjects, the most-favoured-nation clause, and so forth, and he would have taken that action entirely with a view of stopping this Treaty of Reciprocity. The noble Earl has one general remedy. Whatever be the case, his general remedy in all difficulties is Tariff Reform. If I might venture without offence to say so, he rather reminds me in that connection of Canning's celebrated saying with regard to reform—that a man arguing in favour of reform as a universal remedy was like a painter who could only paint one thing, and that was a red lion, and the red lion was introduced on every occasion when he had to use his brush. It seemed to me that from that point of view the noble Earl fails in his argument; and I must say I very greatly regret that anything should be done in this country which would put any difficulty in the way of this Treaty of Reciprocity, and convey the idea that we grudge the Canadian people making the best use of their commercial opportunities, that we, are anxious to promote what I might call our own selfish interests rather than the interests of Canada and of the Empire. I can only hope that that policy will not be pursued, but that the Reciprocity Treaty if it passes will be received by us with wishes of god-speed, for there is no doubt that as the trade and prosperity of Canada and the United States increase we shall have our share.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I think we have reason to feel indignant at the manner in which we have been treated by His Majesty's Government. My noble friend, Lord Selborne, in pursuance of his duty as a member of this House, brings forward a question of the first Imperial importance, and the Government, in answer to him content themselves with putting up a young Under-Secretary to make a speech such as we have listened to, and of which I will not say more than that it had very
614
little indeed to do with the question we put to the Government, which was, "What are you going to do in the circumstances which have arisen?" Instead of answering that question, the Under-Secretary turns on us and plies us with questions. "What are you going to do?" "What would you have done?" he asks, and finally ends up with a scandalous misrepresentation of the attitude of the Unionist Party. The Government remain silent and dumb as to what their policy is. It appears that in this as in other matters they have no policy. But I would like to observe that the government of the country and the management of the affairs of the Empire are matters in which the people of this country are concerned and with regard to which they have a right to be informed, and it is in Parliament and by means of Parliament that they obtain such information. His Majesty's Government are neglecting their duty if they maintain this arrogant attitude of "Wait and see," and of refusing information. We shall persist in our endeavours to obtain information, and if these suave methods of the noble Earl—and they were admitted by the noble Lord opposite to be suave and unexceptionable in every way—do not succeed, I am afraid that we shall have to become a little more pertinacious.
Then the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite is put up because His Majesty's Government have no answer to give apparently and cannot give an answer, and he misrepresents my noble friend by saying that my noble friend made a general attack on Reciprocity. He did nothing of the kind. Nothing could be further from the fact. He was most careful to guard himself against any suggestion or suspicion that that was his intention or his object. What he did was to ask, "What are you, the Government, going to do in the circumstances which have arisen?" That is to say, if Canada does conclude this Reciprocity Agreement, what are you going to do? That was the question. There was no attack whatever on Reciprocity. I will not follow the noble Lord further into his argument except to remark that his history is at fault when he says that Reciprocity has been the dream of Canada for the last sixty years. He ought to know that the policy of Reciprocity was superseded some years ago by the policy of Imperial Preference, and it is our refusal to entertain the policy of Imperial Preference which has revived the policy of Reciprocity.
LORD WELBY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I think I am perfectly right in saying that it was the dream of Canada sixty years ago. Over and over again it has been pressed forward by the Canadian Government upon the United States Government, and not very long ago Sir Wilfrid Laurier said they had only ceased their efforts on account of the absolutely repellent attitude of the United States Government.
LORD AMPTHILL: I have nothing to say to that. But there is all the difference in the world between saying that a thing was a dream sixty years ago and that a thing has been a dream for sixty years. The dream ceased, and has been succeeded by Imperial Preference. The object of this Motion was most clearly explained by my noble friend, and it is intolerable to have to repeat an explanation so clear and so full. It is simply to obtain information. We do not want to raise a debate on Tariff Reform or to discuss food taxes, or, indeed, to go into any of those usual dialectics which were evidently anticipated by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary. We want to know what the Government are doing, or are going to do, in a matter of such deep and far-reaching concern to the Empire. It is not at the present moment a question either of maintaining Free Trade or of advancing Imperial Preference. It is a question of dealing with the far-reaching situation which is confronting us at the present moment.
May I state what we want to know in simple and different words from those of my noble friend? The question we ask is this, How are you going to maintain the continuity of commercial obligations and the continuity of commercial diplomacy if Canada decides to conclude a Reciprocity Agreement? We say "if Canada decides." We have not disputed her right to do so; we have not even questioned the expediency of her doing so; all we know is that Canada is considering these arrangements, and we ask if she does decide upon them what are you going to do to maintain continuity in our commercial obligations and continuity in our traditional commercial diplomacy. Do you wish to maintain those obligations and the commercial policy which Great Britain has pursued for fifty years, or have you some other policy in view? If you do wish to maintain them, how are you going to do it? That is what we want to know. It is
616
simply that question to which we want an answer. And if you do not wish to maintain those obligations, then what is your policy? Those are the questions we ask, and it is to those questions we respectfully ask for an answer from His Majesty's Government for the information of the people of this country who are deeply and vitally concerned.
My Lords, let me explain once more as briefly and as simply as I can, but from rather a different point of view from that of my noble friend, how this question has arisen. Hitherto the British Empire has been one in the matter of commercial relations with the rest of the world. I say it has been one, but I know, of course, there have been certain exceptions during the past thirty years or so, but that is the general principle. The British Empire has been one in the matter of commercial relations with the rest of the world, and on that principle all
the States forming the Empire have shared the advantages and the disadvantages, and the obligations, if you prefer to put it so, of that policy. But now there is to be a change. There is now to be for the first time in the history of the British Empire a differentiation in favour of one of the States forming the Empire as against the United Kingdom and as against the other States of the Empire. Canada has entered into an arrangement with the one nation in the world which puts a different interpretation on the most-favoured-nation clause from ours, and that is why this is a new question and why totally different difficulties have now arisen. The Reciprocity arrangement goes a great deal further than anything that has taken place hitherto in the Agreements which Canada has made, in pursuance of her autonomy and with the full consent of the British Government, with France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and Holland. It is an entirely new question, because it is one of differentiation against the rest of the Empire.
What it means is this, that Canada is to enjoy advantages which we are not to share, or—and this is equally important—she is to suffer disadvantages on account of her Imperial connection. As my noble friend Lord Stanhope said, it is not a matter of amount but one of principle. It may be a very short time before the amount which you may now call insignificant becomes overwhelming in importance. On account of Canada's action we are to

617
lose some of the advantages we have been enjoying, and this discrimination on the part of Canada as against the rest of the Empire is incompatible with Imperial unity. There is no doubt about that. Nobody will deny that the tendency of such differentiation in commercial relations must lead to political disintegration. The difficulty here is that we are concerned with a great principle; it is not a question of Canada alone, it is the position as affecting the Empire as a whole. This question must arise in the other Dominions of the Empire. It must arise in India. We had an exceedingly important statement elsewhere last night from the ex-Viceroy of India, my noble friend Lord Minto, who pointed out that although in many respects there is a vast difference between Canada and India yet the same question was arising there, and that unless India were allowed to make such commercial arrangements as would assist her own development we should not be treating her fairly. The question, therefore, will arise in every part of the Empire. The whole question depends upon most-favoured-nation arrangements and upon the fact that we in the time of our supremacy and our pride and our conversion to Free Trade forced our interpretation of that arrangement on the rest of the world, whereas the United States of America have adhered to the interpretation we used to hold before the days of Cobdenism. This most-favoured-nation clause is the very citadel of Free Trade, and the one thing on which Free Traders pin their faith. They tell us, in reply to every argument for Imperial Preference, "We have our most-favoured-nation clause what more do you want?" But that citadel is being attacked; the enemy is actually within the gate. But what are His Majesty's Government going to do? There is no time to parley; there is no time to obtain a mandate; it is a matter which requires immediate action, and unless something is done the citadel on which you pin your faith, together with your pride, is going to tumble to the ground.
The thing I want especially to call your Lordships' attention to is that this question is not even touched upon by Free Trade speakers; it is not touched upon by Free Trade journals all over the country. They are afraid to touch it; they funk the question. A very important Memorandum was published by the Tariff
Commission yesterday, and yet this morning it is not even
618
mentioned in a single Free Trade or Radical paper throughout the country. This conspiracy of silence and inability to reply increases our anxiety for information. We want to know what his Majesty's Government are going to do. There is one more reason which makes it all the more extraordinary that His Majesty's Government appear to be so unconcerned and unable to give any explanation of their policy, and it is this: One of the certain consequences, so far as we can see, of this Reciprocity Agreement if it is ever carried out is that the price of bread will go up in this country. That is a matter as to which you have always professed to have the greatest concern. If you are not concerned with what Canada contemplates, if you are not concerned with how this matter affects the rest of the Empire, what are you going to do to prevent the rise in the price of bread for the people of this country?
We have made many vain attempts to get information from the Government on a matter which discussion has surely proved to be of supreme importance to British trade interests. At first the Government were inclined to pooh-pooh the whole matter and treat it as if it were no concern of ours. The very meagre White Paper which was issued would really seem to show, unless a great deal of correspondence has been suppressed and withheld, that the Government were not alive to the importance of the question, or did not understand that it was bearing on the whole system of International Treaties. In the White Paper there is no allusion to the most-favoured-nation clause until the arrangement has been made between the representatives of the two countries. Surely there was time for the thought to have occurred to His Majesty's Government that possibly the matter might in some way be affected by this most-favoured-nation clause, of which they talk so much at other times and to which they attribute so much importance. Surely there was time between May 13, 1910, and January 21, 1911; but there is not a word in this White Paper, not a word of any correspondence, not a sign to show that any of those officially concerned with the business had ever lighted on the idea that possibly most-favoured-nation arrangements might have something to do with the question.
When these things were pointed out in another place, Sir Edward Grey was obliged

619
to admit that they did contain difficulties, that they were of importance, but he still attempted to minimise them. He said that difficulties under the dual interpretation of the favoured-nation clause had existed before, and he doubted whether the Reciprocity Agreement would be a serious contribution to those difficulties. He went on to say—and this is a most peculiar statement—that the difficulty was not specially germane to, or peculiarly influenced by, the Reciprocity negotiations. That, my Lords, is surely an extraordinary statement to proceed from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a matter of this kind. After all that has been said on both sides of the water and by statesmen and responsible men of all three countries concerned, surely it is recognised that the question which has arisen in Canada will arise in other Dominions of the Empire. And in the absence of some policy, of some Imperial principle for the negotiation of trade Treaties for the mutual and individual advantage of the States of the Empire, one of two things must happen. The Dominions may withdraw from our Treaties, in which case the Imperial Government will have to denounce them all.
That is a proposition which noble Lords opposite will not deny. That is one alternative. The other alternative is for the Dominions to sacrifice their own interests for our advantage, in which case we shall have to reproach ourselves with hampering them in their development. Both those contingencies must lead to the disintegration of the Empire. You offend the Colonies and create difficulties and all the elements of quarrel. Therefore I say it is essential on that account to have some Imperial agreement.
The Imperial Conference is upon us; it opens next week. That is why my noble friend has brought forward this question this evening, in order that we and the
people of this country may know what attitude His Majesty's Government have taken up. Surely they must have some policy on the very eve of the Conference. We have left it till the last moment to ask what that policy is, and I think that is fair. They ought by now to have made up their minds what they are going to do in the matter of this difficulty. We, the Unionist Party, have a plan. I am not going to describe it; it ought to be familiar to all. It is a plan, and I challenge denial,
620
which has ever been recommended and urged by the Dominions themselves—the plan of Imperial Preference. What is the Government plan? Perhaps they have some better plan than ours. They cannot let things slide. The policy of laissez faire will not do in this matter. You must do something, or you are faced with one or other of those two contingencies which I have just mentioned. The idea of denouncing all our commercial Treaties is too monstrous to be entertained for a moment. I would not suspect even His Majesty's Government of harbouring such an intention. It would mean chaos not only for us but for foreign nations who have built up their tariff systems on our interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause—an interpretation which we have forced upon them. They did not want these complex tariffs which they were obliged to impose and which we forced upon them when we had predominance and power.
My noble friend quoted the reply to Canada in 1892 when we refused to denounce these Treaties for the benefit of Canada on the ground that it would mean a great breaking-up of the existing commercial relations of the whole British Empire with foreign nations. Let me explain once more why these contingencies are inevitable unless we come to some agreement with the Colonies in this matter of commercial diplomacy. Let us take the present case of Canada, although really in this matter Canada is merely the occasion for the discussion. The point of view of my noble friend was one of Preference; he did not attack the Reciprocity Agreement. He wants to know what you are going to do in regard to the question of principle which has been raised by these circumstances in Canada. And I repeat again, because I do not want the misrepresentation to go forth to the country, that my noble friend neither attacked nor approved the Reciprocity Agreement. We take Canada, therefore, merely as an instance. When we last asked a question on this subject the noble Viscount the Leader of the House told us that Canada proposed to extend the concessions which she will grant to the United States under the Reciprocity Agreement to those foreign nations, twelve in number, which are entitled to them under the most-favoured-nation clause. She cannot do that for long, however much she wishes to do it,

621
if indeed she can do it at all. Under her present system, which is a Protectionist system, she cannot give concessions to any number of nations for which she receives no equivalent concessions in return. Obviously the result of so doing must, if it is carried to any extent, force a policy of Free Trade upon her. Her tariff would cease to be revenue producing to the extent to which she was obliged to give those concessions to other nations. If this reciprocal arrangement leads, as everybody thinks it will lead, to complete commercial union with the United States of America, Canada would obviously be unable to maintain a tariff at all. That would mean Free Trade with America, and therefore she would be obliged to give Free Trade to every other country, which she cannot do because she depends upon her tariff for her revenue. If that is clear, surely you will admit my conclusion that Canada is bound sooner or later, probably sooner, to seek release from her present obligations under most-favoured-nation arrangements. Will anybody deny that that is not only probable, but inevitable? That is my point. Very well, that is agreed; and I need not enforce the argument by pointing to actual experience.
When Canada first adopted the policy of Preference she found herself up against the difficulty of the Belgian and the German Treaties. Sir Charles Tupper, the Canadian statesman, pointed out the difficulty, but Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was in office, said, "We shall be able to arrange that, and maintain those Treaties." But he tried it and found it unworkable, and what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to do was to refund the duties to the foreigners. The result was that Canada was obliged to ask for the denunciation of those Treaties, and they were denounced by Lord Salisbury in 1896. That is what happened then, and that is bound to happen again. If Canada is once drawn into the net of United States commercial diplomacy she will be forced to adopt the American interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause. That is the point. That means separation. You cannot have two different interpretations of Treaty obligations under the same sovereignty. I challenge anybody to tell me that you can. You cannot have such a position that the Sovereign of this country is obliged to say to other Sovereigns that the words of one and the same authority mean one thing as applied to
622
the United Kingdom and another thing as applied to Canada or to any other Dominion you like to name. The English words in a legal obligation must always mean the same thing.
In this matter there is a question of principle involved, a question totally different from questions of Party politics such as we have often discussed here. You have to deal with foreign nations, and foreign nations have a means of enforcing their wishes if they are too seriously thwarted. If Canada, adopting the United States interpretation, were to administer her Customs contrary to
Imperial obligations, that would be tantamount to separation. It would be a declaration of independence. Canada, as we all know, would not dream of doing that. But if she wished to administer her Treaties in accordance with American interpretation we should have to denounce those Treaties. It is a serious matter, in spite of the light-hearted attitude of the Under-Secretary. Those Treaties are not easily negotiated again. My noble friend reminded your Lordships of the German Treaty of 1865 which was denounced by Lord Salisbury in 1896. When that Treaty was denounced we became technically liable to the German penal tariff, and the only reason why that tariff has not been imposed is that Germany, no doubt for excellent reasons, has been magnanimous towards us. If we denounced those Treaties we should be liable to the penal tariffs of other nations unless they, too, chose to treat us with magnanimity. We cannot count on the magnanimity of foreign nations. Why should they be magnanimous? It is not business or common sense to entrust your commercial interests to the magnanimity of commercial rivals. If you do not agree with me I beg you to ask that question of any business man you like in the country. Why should they be magnanimous? We forced on them our interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause at a time when we had the start of them in manufactures, commerce, and everything else, and we have put them to the trouble of building up these complex tariffs, which they have had to revise from time to time. But they have no longer to depend on our favour, and would not this be their opportunity of taking it out of us if we were obliged to give up these Treaties? We are faced, therefore, with the alternative of injuring ourselves or of injuring the Colonies

623
by hampering their developments, and in either case, put it how you will, of injuring the Empire as a whole.
And what for? I will not go into that point because, as I have said, we only want information. We do not want to raise the question which is at issue between the two Parties of Tariff Reform or Free Trade, but I ask your Lordships to consider why are we to be forced to choose between these two alternatives of injuring ourselves or injuring the Colonies, and in either case of injuring the Empire, instead of adopting another course. There is, as I have already said, another course. But possibly His Majesty's Government have still a further
alternative. Perhaps they are contemplating an Imperial policy on quite different lines from anything that we ourselves have imagined or suggested or discussed. If that is so, surely they will tell us. It is a matter which concerns the people of this country vitally. It is a matter which is urgent, imminent, important, because next week His Majesty's Government are going to meet the representatives of the Dominions and discuss this question. I ask them therefore once more—and I do beg that they will not reply by merely retorting with a tu quoque storm of questions such as the Under-Secretary put to us—What are you going to do to give commercial men of this country a sense of security in the international relations of trade? And, as my last word, I would say that in this matter if we do not take the right line now we may start irretrievably on the downward path.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has for the second time this session poured out the vials of his wrath upon the heads of His Majesty's Ministers. Last time Mr. Bryce came in for a share of his criticism. On this occasion he has said nothing of Mr. Bryce, but has directed his speech to putting and enforcing the pointed question, "What is the policy of His Majesty's Government at this crisis?" I will tell your Lordships. The policy of the Government is to give every facility to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the people of Canada to do the best they can for themselves, to enter into this Agreement, and, as they think and as we believe, to take thereby the best step they can for the development of
624
Canada. We hold that it is not a disadvantage to us that Canada should develop by the growth of trade relations with the United States. We hold that an enlarged Canada, a Canada with a great trade of this kind, cannot fail to be a more prosperous Canada, a Canada which will be a better market for our goods and will do more trade with ourselves. Therefore, from every point of view, we look upon the step which Canada is taking as being probably a very good step in our own interests as well as in the interests of Canada. But, my Lords, it is not for us to intermeddle with the policy of Canada. We have a perfectly definite attitude towards these matters. We do not think it is a good thing to attempt to guide or influence the policy of the great Dominions in matters of trade. We are—and perhaps this is a simple answer to the noble Lord—we are Free Traders, and we intend to remain Free Traders.
As for Preference, we regard it as an utterly unscientific policy. We expressed our view when it was launched on all sorts of incorrect premises in 1903. We retain that view, and every new phase and every memorandum which comes from that obscure region, the committee rooms of the Tariff Reform League, fills us more and more with the impression that those who promote that policy have not thought it out, and have not the facts and materials on which to put a definite proposition before their countrymen. The noble Lord has asked for a definition of our policy. That is our general policy. And now I come to the more specific case which has been dealt with by the noble—
LORD AMPTHILL: The noble Viscount has not given me a complete answer. My question is, What are you going to do for us?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I will tell the noble Lord.
LORD AMPTHILL: You have told us what you are going to do for Canada, but the question is what you are going to do for us and the Empire?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: We are going to leave the British merchant to flourish in the future as he has done in the past under Free Trade, and to leave the British Empire to hold together by bonds of

625
sympathy and see that it is not killed by any kind of fiscal fetters being put upon it. I noticed that the noble Earl opposite, Lord Selborne, coupled with his disclaimer of any attempt to interfere with Canada a hankering and longing for another policy which was to be adopted by common consent, but which, he was careful to say, would impose such restrictions upon entering on negotiations such as we have been witnessing lately between the United States and Canada as would make that kind of development impossible. That is a policy which to my mind represents a tendency in Imperialism which may lead in very different directions from that supposed to be contemplated.
The noble Earl seemed to think that the British Government in the course of these negotiations had been sitting with hands folded doing nothing. We have done nothing in one sense. That is to say we have not interfered, but we have been cognisant at every turn of what is taking place. I doubt whether any negotiations have been more closely watched or more sympathetically observed. We are fortunate in having an Ambassador who possesses the confidence of the people both of the United States and of Canada. He has been in constant relation with both sets of Ministers, but not for the purpose of interfering. He has kept us informed of what has gone on and has carried out our policy, which is that we should not enter into communications with the Government of the United States with a view to interfering with negotiations of which we approve, and in the way of which we have not the slightest intention of putting obstacles. Mr. Bryce, as I say, has kept us informed, and we have been cognisant of these negotiations. If we do not lay correspondence with the United States, it is because we have none to lay, having deliberately abstained from trying to interfere with these negotiations. For what purpose should we interfere? Perhaps some noble Lords think that this is a new departure on the part of Canada. Canada has carried out similar Agreements with Germany and France, and, I think, also with Belgium, and has been in negotiation with other Powers, not only with our complete consent, but because it is part of the liberty of her Constitution.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said the same myself.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The business of British Ambassadors is to assist and be sympathetic, and it is not our business to try to interfere in these matters with a view to exercising some sort of controlling hand. The noble Earl put his case on a different ground. I could not get clearly before my mind what his point was, but he seemed to think that we were giving up some plain and obvious right which we had by Treaty with the United States to the same advantages as Canada is getting in this case. The noble Earl assents. I am not going to express an opinion one way or the other on this point, except to say that I think the noble Earl is under a very great delusion if he imagines that this is a clear plain business about which there cannot be two views. I presume that what he is alluding to—it is the only thing he can be alluding to—is the Convention of Commerce which was signed at London in 1815 between the United States and this country. The second Article of that Convention says that—
"No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of His Britannic Majesty's Territories in Europe, and no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the territories of His Britannic Majesty in Europe of any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country."
And therefore, argues Lord Selborne, because Canada gets certain advantages, we ought to get the same advantages. It may possibly be so. I make no admission. I pronounce no opinion one way or the other. But in order to sustain that you have to make out that Canada is "another foreign country." I can only say that, so far from being the obvious proposition which Lord Selborne seemed to think, it is a proposition that requires very careful consideration indeed, and I should be very much surprised if it did not turn out that there were very great differences between legal authorities on the point. My present desire is not to express any opinion on that one way or the other, further than to say that it is anything but the plain proposition which the noble Earl assumed.
If that is so, what is our position? Supposing that the country had not at two or three General Elections pronounced against Protection, we might take up Protection and enter next week into some such general tariff agreement as embodies

627
the policy of Mr. Deakin, to which the noble Earl referred, but then we should be turned out of office; we should be hurled with execration from the position we now hold for going against the express and in this case most distinct decision of the country. That is not a policy which responsible Ministers can for a moment lend themselves to. If that policy is shut out, what remains? I will tell your Lordships what remains. What remains is to watch with the utmost care all these transactions as they occur; to approach them not with minds parti pris, but recognising the liberty and freedom of those great Dominions and that in their prosperity you find your own prosperity; believing also that the best course for them is to get rid of those tariff walls which are hampering their trade with other countries and to take such a course as suits the necessities of their own people. We have heard recently from Sir Wilfrid Laurier his own views of policy in that connection. It is not suggested that we should go against those views of policy, and if that be so I am at a loss to understand, I am puzzled to understand, what is in the mind of the noble Earl or the noble Lord who has just spoken.
I have never been able to bring these tariff propositions into a concrete and crystalline form. They are put forward in general terms, and when you come to try to put them into a definite form they evade and elude you. They are put forward on platforms at meetings full of Tariff Reformers, and because they receive applause and assent they are supposed to be clear. But when we come to examine them in debate they go to pieces. There was an expression used in the House of Commons the other day which is not sufficiently polite for your Lordships' House, and therefore I will not use it but merely quote it. "Sloppiness" is the expression I refer to, and it conveys that the matter is not in a clear or crystalline form and is not intelligible when you come to look closely into it. If any illustration were wanted of the danger of lapsing from that clear crystalline form in which these things should be presented it is found in the suggestion which arose in the speech of the noble Earl to-night. Neither on the terms of the Convention has he a clear case nor has he a clear case on his policy. When he is challenged, he cannot say that anything else ought to have been done than
628
was done. He cannot say that Mr. Bryce was negligent. He does not say that. He cannot say that we ought to have interfered in the negotiations between the United States and Canada. He agrees that Canada is not to be deprived of liberties which she has enjoyed on other occasions, and which she is enjoying now. There is nothing left except that we should accept or adopt the policy of Mr. Deakin. His Majesty's Government have no intention of adopting the policy of Mr. Deakin, and, as I have explained, if they did they would be turned out of office, as they would deserve to be, by the majority of the people of this country as unworthy of their trust. As that also has gone, we remain with nothing as an alternative to the course which Ministers and their representatives abroad have pursued in connection with this matter.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, after the apologetic speech of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies it has been a relief to your Lordships to hear the full-blooded defence of the position of His Majesty's Government which has been delivered by the noble Viscount. At the same time I must say I was very much surprised at the charge the noble Viscount made, that on this side of the House a proposition had been advanced in general terms and that my noble friends evaded anything like a definite proposition, because all that the noble Viscount did was to deal with this matter in the most general terms. He did not attempt to make good that this was in any respect a policy which was likely to be advantageous to this country. He spoke in general terms of prosperity, and dealt separately with the position of Canada and Great Britain in this particular. So long as the Canadians are, on their own behalf, trying to make an Agreement which will develop their trade with the United States, their policy is admirable. If Great Britain enters on an attempt to secure Preference for her Colonies, we are told that she is entering upon a sordid bond; but the moment that Canada or any other Colony enters into some Agreement it is said to be a triumph of civilisation and a matter on which everybody must be congratulated, especially if it happens to exclude this country.
The noble Viscount's argument was certainly a most peculiar one, and was very

629
much in contrast with that of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary, whose apology was—"What does it matter? The whole subject is so small." The noble Viscount spoke quite differently. He said this was a very good step in our own interests. How? Where? It may be a good step in Canada's interests; I am not saying a word about that at this moment. But how in our interests? Where do we come in? My noble friend Lord Selborne has pointed out that one of the operations which we may expect to see carried out under this Agreement, and in support of which he gave quotations from a periodical equivalent to the Returns of our Board of Trade, is the manipulation of the market for Canadian wheat so as to take care that the Canadian farmer gets something more and loses nothing, but with the avowed object of raising the price of wheat in the British market.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I thought that was just what the Party of the noble Lord wanted to do—to raise the price of wheat all round. At one time we hear complaints of dearness, and at other times of cheapness. But I do not believe it will happen.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: That is a strange delusion under which the noble Viscount is labouring. I know, of course, the old innuendo, but I really thought that as the noble Viscount has so thoroughly adopted the tone of this House he would have discarded anything he might remember of the tone of the platform. Surely he knows that our proposal with regard to wheat, to which it was proposed to give a preference, would have itself enabled this market to be supplied with wheat on which no duty of any sort or kind would be paid. The whole question of our having a policy to raise the price of wheat all round is disposed of by that one fact; whereas the noble Viscount, who poses as the patron of cheap food, is at this moment justifying, on behalf of Canada, an action which may lead to the advantage of Canada but which will be taken advantage of on the part of the United States to raise the price of wheat in this market. Of course, the noble Viscount is not responsible for that; but still I again ask, where does our interest come in? I shall wait for an answer, a reasoned reply which we have a right to expect from the Government to justify their inaction in this very serious matter.
630
The charge of the Under-Secretary that my noble friend had brought forward this motion with the object of endeavouring to interfere with the freedom of action of Canada in this matter was most unfounded. The noble Lord said that what Lord Selborne wished was to take away from Canada the right to negotiate separately. There was not in my noble friend's speech a shred or shadow of foundation for that statement. It was reiterated by Lord Welby, and was cheered on those very rare occasions when cheers were heard from that side of the House. The whole point of my noble friend's argument was that there was an opportunity, which was being missed, of bringing the whole forces of the Empire to bear to get better terms than could be obtained by a part of the Empire. On that, which is our policy, we have the right to stand without being accused of grudging such a shred of advantage to one Dominion as might be obtained without that co-operation.
I think it is right to ask, especially on this occasion, that we may have a reassuring word from the Government as to one statement made by the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary. I do not propose to labour the question of the most-favoured-nation clause, except to ask this. Were we right on this side of the House in understanding the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary to be to this effect, that the United States had some basis for the interpretation which they have put on the most-favoured-nation clause, an interpretation which has been repudiated by this country for over 100 years? We on this side of the House so understood him.
LORD LUCAS: I certainly never said so. I merely stated, in reply to a question from somebody, that we had never accepted the view which the United States had taken of the most-favoured-nation clause.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am very glad to have drawn that disclaimer from him, because he will see at once that though this question may be one of small amount, it is a question of principle. My noble friend asked the noble Lord whether he could lay any Papers. To that he replied that there were no Papers to lay, from which we conclude that no correspondence has taken place on this subject at all.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Not with the United States. No correspondence with the Government of the United States.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: We cannot sufficiently call in question the masterly inactivity of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord said several times over that they were watching the case. The noble Viscount said they had "sympathetically observed the case." We think we have a right to ask for more than that. I agree with the tribute which was paid by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, to our Ambassador in the United States, but that our Ambassador should have had no instructions to pursue British interests in this matter at any stage of the negotiations does certainly seem an extraordinary omission on the part of His Majesty's Government.
LORD LUCAS: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? If that last statement of his is based on anything I said, I am afraid that he misunderstood me. What I said was that in accordance with the terms of the Motion we have no Papers to lay, because there has been no communication with the Government of the United States.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The terms of the Motion are, "as to the extension to the United Kingdom or any other part of the British Empire." That is a very serious question. We desire to be reassured as to the extent to which His Majesty's Government have attempted to receive from the United States assurances as to the extension of the tariff concessions granted to Canada to other parts of the British Empire and to this country. It seems to us to have been a most short-sighted policy to have allowed this opportunity to escape. The Government have placed themselves in a very difficult position for negotiating with any other foreign Power or with the United States by themselves locking and shutting the door to any possibility of tariff negotiations on our own side. They have, of course, tied their hands, and the more they choose to assume that the people of this country have decided against our policy—at one moment they tell us that the verdict was on Free Trade, at another that the verdict was on Home Rule, and at another that the verdict was on the
632
House of Lords—the more we feel that they do not rest on the opinions of the people in this particular respect. I believe that the result of this debate will be to create a widespread feeling that what the noble Viscount calls "sympathetic watching" the negotiations has really meant the neglect by a Government which is completely absorbed in home questions of Constitutional change of British trade interests. As Lord Ampthill pointed out, we have only had one small White Paper on this subject. The announcement that there are no more Papers to follow will, I think, be a great disappointment, not only to your Lordships, but to the country. It represents a confession on the part of the Government of having no power to act, and the speeches to which we have listened really make us feel that they have no desire to act in the matter. Apart from the general question, I congratulate my noble friends on having, on the eve of the Colonial Conference, drawn from the Government the kindliest possible references to our great Dominions. But coupled with that has been the evidence that there has been complete inactivity on the part of the Government in pressing the interests of this country in these negotiations, and an attempt, which I do not think will deceive any man who comes over here from the Colonies, to impress this House with the belief that any union between Great Britain and the Dominions overseas for these purposes would weaken the Dominions rather than establish that co-ordinate and sustained effort which we on this side of the House believe will have the best possible results for the trade of the Empire, and also for the union of the different parts of His Majesty's Dominions.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As I understand His Majesty's Government to say that there is no correspondence or communication to lay upon the Table, which is not surprising considering that they have told us that their policy is a policy in this respect of doing nothing, I do not intend to trouble your Lordships by pressing this Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Three o'clock.